Skip to main content

Statue of Jesus holding his hand to his forehead
Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ:
The Catholic Church's U.S. hierarchy warned Tuesday that without quick action by Congress, it will sue the Obama administration for mandating that insurance plans provide birth control to women without a co-pay.

"[F]orcing individual and institutional stakeholders to sponsor and subsidize an otherwise widely available product over their religious and moral objections serves no legitimate, let alone compelling, government interest," lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in a letter to federal regulators.

Talk about sore losers. The bishops had their chance to weigh in on the Obama administration's new policy to require health insurers to cover birth control without co-pays. The Obama administration generously carved out a boatload of exemptions for them to address their "concerns." The bishops even got their puppets in Congress to introduce bills on their behalf—which the American people overwhelmingly opposed. They even got themselves invited to the boys-only congressional hearing on birth control—because who understands birth control better than a bunch of supposedly celibate men?

At the end of the day, though, they lost. They made their case that basic health care for women violates their "religious liberty" and makes Jesus sad—and they lost. They launched a charm offensive to "set the record straight," arguing that the Catholic Church totally loves women's health care and has been "the most effective private provider of such care anywhere around," and people better stop saying mean stuff about them or they won't be able "to live out the imperatives of our faith to serve, teach, heal, feed, and care for others." And no one bought it.

You'd think, after such a resounding "fuck off" from the American public, the bishops might leave women's health care alone and go back to focusing on those important things they claim to care about. But when the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), led by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and the president of the bishops' conference, met to decide whether to accept defeat or keep whining, they of course decided to keep whining, even as they concluded:

Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.
Well, apparently their prayers didn't work, so they've decided to scrap the God plan in favor of litigation:
"We believe that this mandate is unjust and unlawful – it is bad health policy, and because it entails an element of government coercion against conscience, it creates a religious freedom problem," wrote Anthony Picarello, USCCB associate general secretary and general counsel, and Michael Moses, associate general counsel. "These moral and legal problems are compounded by an extremely narrow exemption that intrusively and unlawfully carves up the religious community into those that are deemed 'religious enough' for an exemption, and those that are not."
That would be the same Anthony Picarello who introduced the world to the laughable Taco Bell theory—that the boatload of exemptions to this mandate do not cover someone who opens a Taco Bell and thinks his employees should not be allowed to use birth control because of Jesus 'n stuff. Yeah, he's a real legal eagle, that one.

Given that one federal court has already ruled against the bishops' absurd argument that their definition of religious liberty trumps all else, any future lawsuits are most likely destined for the same fate. But since stopping women from having access to affordable health care has now become the Most Importantest Issue Evah!, little things—like being completely wrong—probably won't stop the bishops from continuing to stamp their feet like petulant two-year-olds who don't want to take a nap.

Because that is totally what Jesus would do.

Originally posted to Kaili Joy Gray on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:06 AM PDT.

Also republished by Abortion, Street Prophets , Pro Choice, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  OK, I'm not Catholic (23+ / 0-)

    But don't the bishops run the risk of appearing to be so rigid and partisan that even their parishioners think they are extreme?

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:11:59 AM PDT

  •  Time to sue THEM (11+ / 0-)

    for trying to undermine our Republic, and trying to force THEIR religious beliefs not only down our throats, but also demanding their beliefs to be enshrined in our SECULAR laws.

    "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ~ Edward Abby

    by SaraBeth on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:15:58 AM PDT

  •  Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (14+ / 0-)

    Got that, bishops?  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:16:31 AM PDT

  •  Just like (8+ / 0-)

    Jesus would have done.

    Score Card: Marriages won by me, 1. Marriages destroyed by me, 0.

    by Steven Payne on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:19:48 AM PDT

  •  Add this to the (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, tardis10, Siri, OldDragon, Cali Scribe, varro

    old man in D.C. threatening Georgetown for having the audacity to engage Sibelius as a speaker and here we have it:  a cabal of evil men who will gut their own money machine.  Sane people will not be drawn by hate covered in the red cassock of pseudo-piety.  Fuckers.

    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:19:58 AM PDT

    •  nonfuckers (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob, tardis10, IndieGuy, Cali Scribe

      which maybe is part of their problem.

      fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

      by mollyd on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:21:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This sentence is wordalicious! (0+ / 0-)
      Sane people will not be drawn by hate covered in the red cassock of pseudo-piety.

      As of 02/22/2012 in Washington State pharmacists can exercise their "religious freedom" by denying women access to Plan B because the judge thinks there aren't any bigots in this state.

      by FlamingoGrrl on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:01:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I LOVE this - oh the craft of (6+ / 0-)

        laying it between the words ;0

        They even got themselves invited to the boys-only congressional hearing on birth control—because who understands birth control better than a bunch of supposedly celibate men? {emphasis added}
        In answer to this
        You'd think, after such a resounding "fuck off" from the American public, the bishops might leave women's health care alone and go back to focusing on those important things they claim to care about.
        Yeah, they are only two years into investigating the Girl Scouts. Time to really pay attention and wrap it up guys. Or are the Girl Scouts being too compliant?

        One of your best, KJG.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:31:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They have a right to go to the Court and argue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    downsouth, ryanmcleod, VClib

    that their constitutional rights are being violated.  That doesn't mean they will win, but I'm not sure that we should be bashing them for going to court to argue that their constitutional right to the Free Exercise of their religion is being violated.  I don't begrudge anyone who thinks their constitutional rights are being violated from going to court to make that argument.  I'm not sure why this diary attacks them for making their constitutional case, if they think they have one, in a court.  That's kind of where it belongs, isn't it?  That's where they are supposed to go to get a decision on a constitutional argument, isn't it?  

    You'd think, after such a resounding "fuck off" from the American public, the bishops might leave women's health care alone and go back to focusing on those important things they claim to care about.
    That's not the standard for someone who thinks that their constitutional rights have been violated, is it? "If the overwhelming view of the American public is against you, you should just forget it, even if you think that your constitutional rights have been violated?"  That's not how things operate in this country.  If you think your constitutional rights are violated, you go to court and make your case, even if the majority is against you.  I'm glad the Inc. Fund and Thurgood Marshall didn't look at the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans were against them and just shut up.  Or Mildred and Richard Loving.  Of course, they won.  But I think even people who LOSE do a service to the rest of us.  They, at least, put an argument to rest.  

    This is actually the best way for this whole thing to be handled, it seems to me.  So, the bishops have been saying that having to pay for a health care policy that contains coverage for things against their religious beliefs violates their First Amendment rights.  So, if that's what they think, it's sort of "put up or shut up."  Go to a court and make that argument, and see where it gets you.  If you win, then you had a point all along.  If you lose, then you can't go around anymore saying that your constitutional rights have been violated.  If you lose (especially at the SCOTUS), it puts that whole argument to rest.  It's done, over.  

    Going to court is how we resolve these things.

    •  Their religious freedom (15+ / 0-)

      isn't being violated.  This is comparable to a SLAPP suit.  I'm really effing sick of the courts being used to arbitrate extremist religious beliefs of some which could be imposed on all of us.

      Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:26:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't they have a right to have a court tell them (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ryanmcleod, VClib

        that their constitutional rights aren't being violated?  They don't have to take your word for it. Or mine.  

        If it's frivolous, it gets thrown out, and they have to pay for the other side's attorney's fees and costs to litigate.

        And, if they lose, then there's no more room to make the argument.

        I'm really effing sick of the courts being used to arbitrate extremist religious beliefs of some which could be imposed on all of us.
        Isn't that what a court is SUPPOSED to do -- "arbitrate" things like that?   How else is it supposed to be handled?  
      •  Nonsense. It is not a SLAPP suit in any way (0+ / 0-)
        This is comparable to a SLAPP suit.
        Absolute bull shit.  The Church's suit (if it sues) will not in any way discourage public participation.

        Justify your allegation.

        •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Womantrust, Calamity Jean

          They have unlimited resources compared to the women they seek to subjugate. They have unfettered access to our legislators and to the courts and the press, compared to the women they seek to subjugate--and those women are not [I repeat-NOT] just Catholics.

          As a woman who has to deal with a constant, relentless onslaught of attacks on my rights as an American Citizen, between clinic-bombers, abortion-stalkers, pharmacists and doctors who want to eliminate my access to birth control, informed consent, abortion, and even sex education--

          And I am not allowed [nor was any woman] to sit in on or testify on the congressional hearings regarding these matters---

          How could this not be like a SLAPP suit.

          What regular citizen out there, esp a female one is going to have the time and money to fight this multi-fronted war on our unalienable rights, on our civil rights and human rights?

          Sure the cases are frivolous to us, but to the people the Church lobbies with cold hard cash, frivolity is in the eye of the beholder.

          They are like termites eating away at our rights, continuously and we-regular citizens do not have the resources to compete with them, nor the clout either.  So every time they throw a few thousand or million dollars around for lobbying, for organizing, and for lawyering, it's a slap suit for me. I am outgunned and outmonied from day one and they know it.

          At the end of the day, total strangers make arguments about this, and we have very little say in this and I dunno--I am a bit sick of it all.

          They need to pack their asses back to Rome. They clearly do not belong in this country, if they cannot abide by the rules.

          •  Do you even know what a SLAPP suit is? (0+ / 0-)

            Not one thing you have written is relevant to whether or not this is a SLAPP suit.

            •  Yes I do, it is a suit that is not meant to (0+ / 0-)

              actually accomplish much, but to force the opponents, usually the poor and indigent to use up all their limited resources [read money and time] so that the corporate interest--or in this case, the corporate-Church can pursue their goals unchallenged in the courts and the legislature.

              Normally it is a tactic of intimidation, but I can see this as legal Jujutsu as well.

              Basically the Corporate-Church in it's relentlessness, is forcing the opposition [American Women] to use up all our time and money to fight them in a multitude of cases, to deal with abortion clinic bombers, and abortion stalkers, and the product of lobbyists who can pay their way into a Legislator's office--ad nauseum.

              Since we have children and families, jobs, etc., and are not independently wealthy with time or money, nor are we supported by any such entity, they often clog up the courts and our own personal calendars with a constant onslaught.

              Add to that the intimidation factor of domestic terrorists, and public stigma [shades of Flush's Slut Talk] and yea, I would call these SLAPP Suits.

    •  She never argued against (6+ / 0-)

      Their right to go to court.

      Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

      by yet another liberal on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:29:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's how I read it, especially (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        the section I block quoted, which basically said that, since the majority of Americans were against them, what they  should do is just shut up about it.  How else do you read that except that she's criticizing them for choosing to go to court instead of shutting up about it.  

        •  Having the right to go to court (10+ / 0-)

          doesn't mean you have the right to not be criticized for choosing to do so.

          I can acknowledge their right to go to court but still think it's a lousy idea.

          •  I guess that's where I disagree. I think it's the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ryanmcleod

            best way to handle this.  Certainly it's a far better solution than simply having the bishops continue to say, "our constitutional rights are being violated," and those on the left saying, "no they are not" which is the only other plausible option.  

            Telling people who disagree with you about their constitutional rights that they should simply shut up and go away is not a plausible option.  That's why we have courts.  If you think going to court to get this resolved is a "lousy idea," how would you suggest that a disagreement over whether someone's constitutional rights are being violated should be resolved?  

            There's a difference, it seems to me, between criticizing someone's position on the law and the constitution (ok with me) and criticizing them for going to court to get a constitutional question resolved (not as ok with me).

            •  Sigh (3+ / 0-)

              I think their position (that their constitutional rights are being violated by having to include birth control in their insurance coverage) is silly. That is why I think it is a lousy idea. I don't think going to court is a lousy idea inherently; just in this particular case. I also doubt that if they lose they are going to shut up about it, but it will be their constitutional right to whine about it just as it is my right and Kaili's and gchaucer's to do the same.

              •  It's not silly. The case cited by the diarist (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib

                is completely inapposite and has nothing to do w/ the subject at hand.  I don't think the gvt could mandate that the church purchase coverage for contraception (which is why churches were specifically excluded from the reach of the mandate); what this case is about is whether religiously affiliated orgs can be compelled to take actions that conflict w/ the church w/ which they're affiliated.

                I think the government can, in fact, compel an affiliate to do that, but to say it's totally obvious and frivolous is just goofy.

                •  Whatever. (4+ / 0-)

                  I have lost any semblance of patience with anybody who is opposed to contraception on moral grounds (or pretends they are; I'm doubtful even they - the ones who plainly have no problem with child sex abuse - believe contraception is immoral). Kaili's post stems from the same point of view, I believe.

                  •  I think this gets into the realm of (3+ / 0-)

                    whether you can litigate about rights violations if the law is simply allowing others to do what is legal, in their own lives without interfering with anyone else's rights, because it violates your religious beliefs. At some point, using a specific religious belief to support or ban a law gets too close to establishing a state religion. The framers talked and wrote about the wall. They didn't put the words into the Constitution but there is no misunderstanding their intent based on the writings before and after.

                    UUs have been advocating, performing, and celebrating gay unions since '73. I consider the bans against gay marriage an interference with our right to practice our beliefs. It doesn't require any other churches to honor or perform same sex marriages. It doesn't force or coerce any one to marry a person they don't want to. The government is actually better off having those marriages treated like heteros. We haven't gone to court over it on religious grounds. We fight using basic civil rights.

                    If the Catholic hierarchy would work harder to stop wars and end the death penalty, I wouldn't consider them such a bunch of hypocrites. Meanwhile, they tie up the over burdened court system.

                    "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                    by Ginny in CO on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:25:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  What actions? (0+ / 0-)

                  The action of having a health insurer separately notify your employees that it will provide free contraceptive coverage? Gee, I can really see how the bishops might feel that threatens their religious freedom (not).

            •  Do you honestly believe (0+ / 0-)

              that the bishops would stop saying that their constitutional rights were being violated if the court were to rule against them?  IMO they would continue to whine and complain, and this proposed lawsuit is all about them having a hissy fit.

            •  It's not just about the Catholic church (5+ / 0-)

              It's also about any health care provider that wants to refuse treatment on moral grounds. I don't have all the details, but it seems most of these kinds of cases revolve around birth control of some kind or another )e.g., the "morning after" pill). Also, I'm not a lawyer, so I may be oversimplifying, but the bigger issue I see is when and under what circumstances can a health care provider refuse to render treatment on the basis of moral objections, when that treatment is a standard treatment?

              If the courts were to rule that the Catholic Church could refuse to offer provide birth control, doe that open the door for other providers to refuse treatment for other moral objections?

              •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Womantrust, Calamity Jean

                It would most assuredly not be limited to the Catholics, but to anyone who objected based upon religious grounds.  And, yes, I could see that easily extending to pharmacists.  And, if you are thinking, no big deal, just go to another pharmacist, consider the following:

                For some people, transportation is limited, so paying to take a bus or cab is a burden - to say nothing of the extra time.  And, some small towns have only one pharmacy.  

                Also, I always wonder if those little blue pills they make for men...  you know the ones... I wonder if those are covered.
                And, if the Church ever stops to worry how many of the men who take them will be using them as an aid for - gasp - sexual relations outside of their marriages...

    •  It's frivolous (0+ / 0-)

      It wastes time and resources. We pay to defend bunk lawsuits like this with our tax dollars!

    •  I for one am tired of them having special access (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Womantrust, Calamity Jean

      to our courts and legislators, when the rest of us average American women do not. Even though rules and laws are being written that affect women.

      WHAT THE FUCK OVER?

    •  Total nonsense, coffeetalk (0+ / 0-)

      The argument isn't that the bishops have no right to go to court, it's that they picked a relative non-issue to contest and are forgetting the separation of church/state that made our nation the melting pot it is, in addition to weighing in on a secular issue and giving ammunition to conservative critics of Obama.    

      In sum, the Church's priorities under the current pope are regressive whilst they avoid real human suffering.  What the hell do priests know about family planning?   Apparently, about as much as they know about pedophilia. And where do they get the resources to butt in on secular government policy when their own policies are a holy mess? P.S. I, too, am a Recovering Catholic.

  •  gosh, you'd think they'd (9+ / 0-)

    spend more of an effort rooting out all the corruption in their own body, instead of covering it up.

    I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

    by terrypinder on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:24:49 AM PDT

  •  Nobody More Expert on Bad Medicine Than Bishops (9+ / 0-)

    --How long did it take you to catch up to Galileo? About 4 centuries?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:26:43 AM PDT

    •  Took 4 centuries for ether to be (6+ / 0-)

      administered during surgery or medical procedures to control pain. Certainly no pain medicine was allowed during childbirth until the 20th century! That was our forever punishment for Eve's 'sin'.

      That was my personal reason for refusing to believe in or worship that god. About age 6.

      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

      by Ginny in CO on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:32:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is EXACTLY WHY (5+ / 0-)

    I made this.

    Damn it makes me mad that we have to fight this all over again. So perhaps they should be asked all sorts of lady questions in their emails and phone messages.

    You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough. -Mae West

    by COwoman on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:30:41 AM PDT

  •  They'll find a sympathetic judge who will rule for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alguien, gailwax

    the Bishops, and watch the media go to town.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:56:14 AM PDT

  •  I'm still trying to digest (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    createpeace, elmo

    how they can consider having the insurance company pick up the tab for contraception infringes on their rights.  Are they arguing that just having them covered is the thing, no matter who pays for it?  

    I'm a Catholic woman (well beyond childbearing age).  For about a year when I was in my 20s, I took the pill for other reasons.  (My doc told me that the Pill had originally been "invented" for something totally unrelated to contraception.  My guess is that they noticed that women who took the hormones didn't conceive, and Poof! a new use - and patent, $$ - for an old drug.)  As soon as something else was available to treat my condition, I got off them, not because I had any religious feelings about it, but because I wasn't thrilled with the long term effects.  Women who need to take these for other than contraception should not have to go through an inquisition just to make sure they aren't avoiding their "obligation" to have babies.

    -7.62, -7.28 "Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly." -Langston Hughes

    by luckylizard on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:28:41 PM PDT

    •  It's just mean spirited, I think (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckylizard

      Most Catholic women of childbearing age are already using contraception, they just have to pay for it out of their own pocket. Apparently, the bishops want them to be punished financially for their "perfidy."

    •  luckylizard - no product is ever really free (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      luckylizard

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:16:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Issue for the Catholic Church (0+ / 0-)

      The Catholic Church being a large organization! self-insures (while using insurance companies for administrative services) - so the Church would be paying for these services they morally object to.

      I don't blame the Church, I blame the government for insurance tied to employment.

      If we don't have national health insurance, at least private insurance should be paid by the employee (with adjustment in cash compensation) with her choice of insurance company and policy, no need to change insurance when jobs change and with similar tax benefits.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:55:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, they think paying money to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Womantrust, Calamity Jean

      something that will be used by people who don't believe what they believe will land them in hell. Really vengeful God they worship.  I would like to be let off of taxes for ~65% of the military and all of the death penalty expenses.

      Yes, the 'side effects' of drugs sometimes become the primary reason they are prescribed - Viagra being a very notorious example.  I took embryology in college ('70) from one of the leading researchers on progesterone. They were most definitely developing birth control. I don't recall that there was an earlier form of drug for another diagnosis that clued them into the interference with ovulation. That was all pretty well understood by then.

      (One of my BIG problems with considering a zygote a human being with full rights, is having taken that class. It's a bunch of undifferentiated cells that have a LOT of developing and dividing to do before it is close to a human - let alone one that can survive outside the womb.)

      FWIW, the prof was a really awesome person. Funny, friendly, and very down to earth. And smart.

      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

      by Ginny in CO on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:52:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So besides shelling out church funds... (0+ / 0-)

    ...to compensate the victims and cover-up sexual abuse, instead of providing care for the needy, the hierarchy wants to fritter away yet more money for foolish and harmful litigation. Shut down adoption agencies, cancel health insurance to universities...and they still have the gall to claim that these actions are in alignment with their notion of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yeah...what's left of the faithful will get behind that principle stance. They apparently haven't noticed that the flock here in America enjoys the concept of democracy. That's why I'm always astounded that anyone would want to aspire to a "Kingdom" where they have no power whatsoever and will supposedly spend eternity worshiping a deity with self-esteem issues.

    •  Clearly, the Church of Rome is stuck in a (4+ / 0-)

      theological rut.  There are any number of possible exits from the box in which they now find themselves.  What is most worrisome to me is that the institution is being dismantled from the inside out, without the slightest awareness on the part of their leaders.  John Paul II and Ratzinger have a particular point of view, which is mighty ugly when enforced.  I would look for the attacks on women to continue and intensify, until they reach the point that their parishes will empty out.  For the life of me, I do not understand how anyone can offer financial support to this project.  

      I am helped to remember that the faith community has had great successes in civil and human rights (who can deny the effectiveness of the church in South Africa, the U.S.?) The papal entourage would do well to consider how these successes were achieved.  It is most certainly not on the path they now pursue.  

      "We had a chance to change the world and opted for the Home Shopping Network instead." -Stephen King

      by Y00per on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:32:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What Jon Stewart says: (5+ / 0-)

        "you have confused the War on Religion with NOT Getting Everything YOU Want."

        What I want to know:

        Why are the white old men whining so much these days? Every call-in program features at least one poor put-upon old guy. It ain't as if we do not have the lion's share of the privileges!

        "We had a chance to change the world and opted for the Home Shopping Network instead." -Stephen King

        by Y00per on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:52:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  FacePalm of Christ-Nice touch nt (7+ / 0-)

    Doctor Mitt Romney Brain Sturgeon-The Operation was a success but the patient died, where's my fee?

    by JML9999 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:09:37 PM PDT

  •  They're really going to be pissed when they (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ginny in CO

    have to pay for a abortions.  

    Rick Perry is George Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:12:01 PM PDT

  •  Sandusky should take a page out of the Catholic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon

    Bishops' playbook. Instead of addressing the charges against him for raping children, he should sue Obama. And some people would call it extreme. Jeez.

  •  Wouldn't it be nice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Womantrust

    if a bunch of guys who wear dresses were a little more understanding about women.  

    Save the U.S. Postal Service, an august, efficient, trusted and indispensable American institution.

    by LeftOfYou on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:23:15 PM PDT

  •  Who died and made these shmucks (3+ / 0-)

    Lords of the Lady Parts? Being Jewish I'm no expert on the New Testament but I've not aware of any section that rails against the Evils of the Lady Parts.

    And yes, I meant schmucks, for obvious reasons.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:25:55 PM PDT

  •  As much as I object to the Church's position (0+ / 0-)

    I have to comment that the Catholic Church does provide a lot of health care, and much of that is to women. I'm not defending the Church. I'm not Catholic, and I believe they have conducted some of the worst atrocities in history. However, I suggest that the criticism in this case be focused on birth control, since that is the focus of this case. It just seems arguing that trying to refuse to offer birth control is the refusing to provide women health care is painting with too broad a brush.

  •  Now.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..That's how to entitle a post on Kos' little orangey-hued website.

    I love it.

    I'd like to bestow the title to Kaili Joy Gray of super-entitler but entitlements are unearned and the word has negative connotations in the press and in congress and who am I to "bestow" anything anyway?

    Are "boobs" considered "lady-parts?"

    'Cause I had the opportunity to view Jeopardy live this evening with Anderson Cooper, Thomas Friedman, and whatsername with the boobs Kelly O'Donnell.

    No spoiler alert necessary, but our journalistic thought-leaders in "the press" leave a lot on the table when it comes to "Final Jeopardy." A fifth-grader could do better.

    They were all boobs.

  •  Of course it serves (3+ / 0-)

    a compelling fucking government interest for women to have access to hormone therapies.

    It's called not having to pay out TANF funds later, or food stamps, or have kids who wouldn't have been had, come up into poverty.  It's called less CPS cost, because babies aren't having babies.

    Fucking assholes.

    Kathleen Sebelius 2016

    by pvlb on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:30:15 PM PDT

  •  I'm just havin' (6+ / 0-)

    a severe case of cognitive dissonance here.

    These are the same guys who rape children?  And protect other people who rape children?

    And they are on their 'moral' high horse about coercion and morals and ethics?

    Really, just who the hell do they think they are?

    Kathleen Sebelius 2016

    by pvlb on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:32:47 PM PDT

  •  Big Religion, meet Big Money (4+ / 0-)

    Oh, you've already been introduced?

  •  They Don't Go Far Enough (6+ / 0-)

    Can't we get these insurance plans to stop paying for babies, too? I strenuously object to MY MONEY being used to pay for maternity wards and pre-natal care and the like. I don't have kids. Why should I subsidize all those other kids? All these costs are purely optional on the part of the people collecting. They aren't necessary medical expenses at all.

    Of course, that would violate the whole premise of insurance, which is that you don't know what you're going to need, and what one person defines as a medical expense someone else can always object to for one reason or another.

    But if these plans are not going to pay for abortions or contraceptions, then fairness demands that they don't pay for babies, either.

    •  Well you have to think long term with regards to (0+ / 0-)

      the Church.

      People saddled with too many babies need a lot of social support.

      And the church is always there to provide daycare, and to give out food and clothing. Families who receive this ahem--"charity" after being denied family planning services,will be beholding to the Church.

      This = more members. Children raised in that church, future priests and nuns, or just Catholics.

      What we are seeing, are the very roots of Self-Perpetuation via forced pregnancy the logical end result--the cycle of poverty.

      The church is fighting irrelevancy right now. And it is fighting very hard. So hard that it ignores it's own internal corruption in favor of trying to restart the N. American Bay Conveyor belt.

      They have already lost in Europe. But in N. and S. America, and in Africa--there is still hope for the church to maintain it's power and relevancy.

  •  How are oral contraceptives handled (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, Womantrust

    In other countries, particularly ones like Canada, the UK, France, etc? The reason I ask is I want to know if the Catholic Church is up in arms and suing those churches as well.

  •  A church guilty of a worldwide criminal conspiracy (6+ / 0-)

    Under them, child molestation and the subsequent covering up of the criminal activity has been going on in countries around the world. The perpetrators have been moved from one country to another to evade justice.

    Having them claim to be the arbiters of morality is an insult to us all.

    Mitt Romney treats people like things. And he treats things - corporations - like people.

    by richardak on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:42:06 PM PDT

  •  Lawyers? That sounds expensive. (4+ / 0-)

    Where is the Church going to get all the money to waste on court proceedings, when fewer and fewer of us contribute any more, and they are closing dioceses because they need money to defend their sex criminals and cover-ups and pay settlements to their victims?

    (All my favorite Catholic clergy eventually quit the church.)

    Voting Republican is a luxury that very few Americans can afford.

    by Says Who on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:49:57 PM PDT

    •  The church has been around for a very long time (4+ / 0-)

      and in that time, has acquired a lot of land and money and other offerings.

      Compared to the average American, or even the average protestant church, the Catholic Church has unlimited Resources.

      They do after all, have their own country as well.  Honestly, I see sovereignty issues as well here, but that's just me.

      •  The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        largest holder of real estate in the world- including income producing property- on which no taxes are paid since the church enjoys tax exempt status due to being 'non- profit'.
        What a sham!  Why are they allowed to continue this theft?!

  •  Take a look here (0+ / 0-)

    right after the belly dancing to hear what nonsense an asshole priest spouted at the recent rally in St Paul  for the marriage amendment.

  •  Catholics for Choice Facebook page (3+ / 0-)

    these people get more vitriol spit at them in one day then I've seen in quite a while ... they are heroes in their own way

    http://www.facebook.com/...

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:15:25 PM PDT

    •  Like this one (0+ / 0-)

      (which will eventually get deleted)

      Cathy Harms-Schoonveld
      This is crap, you people don't speak for me...I'm a true Catholic. You are for the killing of innocent children?? This is super sickening. Unbelievable!!! Heretics, all of ya!! Because you speak against the faith, you don't even know what Catholicism is, if you wanna be a pro abort, drop the title of CATHOLIC...HERETIC!!

      Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

      by Clytemnestra on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:17:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  These assholes (7+ / 0-)

    are a political organization, they need to lose their tax exempt status

  •  If underage boys could get pregnant... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrsgoo, GreenMother, Womantrust

    ...the bishops would be for insurance-provided birth control.

    Sorry if this sounds angry, but maybe they should focus on their own issues.

    I hope that, during my lifetime, there will be a liberal president.

    by rantsposition on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:41:34 PM PDT

  •  Why do we have to listen to them at all? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, filkertom, Calamity Jean

    The catholic church has forfited any and all rights to talk on moral and sexual issues.  The basic facts are that priests sexually abused children for years, Bishops and their lackies covered up those crimes.  They moved priests accross national and state boarders to assist in this coverup.

    They protected criminals (priests) from justice, despite massive evidence of sexual abuse of minors.  At some point the catholic church in the US must face what it has done, they no longer have authority to enter the public square and pontificate.  

    The DOJ needs to add this to a long list of much needed investigations, the state by state aproach allows too much to be hidden.  It really is a Federal matter, call the vaticans representative in to the whitehouse and let him know that the investigation conducted in Irland is about to be expanded to all 50 states.

    I have long since given up onthe catholic church, the latest stupidity simply confirms that this is an organization run by a bunch of corrupt old farts with far too much sence of thire own importance.  You are free to worship in the way you chose, you are not free to molest children.

     

    there is only one reality, republicans just forget at times

    by Bloke on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:58:57 PM PDT

  •  Holy Moly. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, Calamity Jean

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:14:00 PM PDT

  •  Why aren't they in sackcloth and ashes? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenMother, Womantrust

    You'd think at this point that the U.S. bishops would be making public acts of contrition for the clergy sex abuse/coverup crisis and not getting within a ten-foot pole of any public policy issue concerning sexuality.  Wouldn't you?

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act--Orwell

    by jhannon on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:14:22 PM PDT

  •  Kaili-- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Calamity Jean

    this is what right wingers always do.  Always.

    Someone on the D side holds out his hand to them, someone who disagrees with them.  They take him for all he's worth--or all he will give them--and then they turn on him and scream that they're being horribly oppressed.

    Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:11:47 PM PDT

  •  Bishops are bastards (0+ / 0-)

    and most of the people who flock to their church are probably bastards too.

  •  Teapublican's think that Federal mandates... (0+ / 0-)

    are unconstitutional.    Therefore when will we see them protesting Selective Services?

    # CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT REGISTERING
     The maximum penalty for failing to register with Selective Service is a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison. Failure to register will cause ineligibility for a number of federal and state benefits including:

    # FEDERAL JOBS
     A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.

    # STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
     Men who are not registered with Selective Service cannot obtain Federal student loans or grants. This includes Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.

    # CITIZENSHIP
     The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship, if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday and was required to register.

    # FEDERAL JOB TRAINING
     The Workforce Investment Act (formerly JTPA) offers important job-training opportunities. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service.

    # STATE JOBS, LOANS, AND TRAINING
     Most states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register with Selective Service.

  •  They better watch out acting like 2 year olds (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    in a few years they will be just too darn cute not to touch.

  •  CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO FORCE THE CHURCH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Womantrust

    TO PAY TAXES!!  I think is is PAST time for Catholics to go to church and DOCUMENT the POLITICS, IDEOLOGY and THREATS being issued by the Catholic Church to its parishoners.  Direct involvement in government and politics.  SUE FOR THEM TO PAY TAXES ON EVERYTHING just like the rest of us.

    It would not take much documenting, there are thousands of Church representatives all over the United States sticking their noses in government business and violating the separation of church and state.

  •  Tax exempt? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Womantrust

    If the bishops want to proceed with litigation, it is time to remove their churches tax exempt status.

  •  There is only one cure for the Bishops. . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Womantrust, Calamity Jean

    Hit them where it hurts. Walk out on them when they speak of political issues from the pulpit, refuse to give them money, send your kids to other schools, refuse to seek care in one of their hospitals, refuse to work for them and refute them in public forums whenever they spew their nonsense.  I am aware that the Catholic church has a monopoly on health care in some localities.

    Yes, I was (am) Catholic.  I even went to the same high school as Cardinal Levada, but I am deeply angered by priests participation in politics.  If it were possible to withdraw their tax exemption. . . .  But that will never happen.

    Paging Bud Fox, paging Bud Fox! Mitt Gekko is waiting for you in Central Park!

    by waztec on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:40:09 AM PDT

  •  Of course this is immoral and a gross violation of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    the rights of the church.

    But of course, requiring health insurance cover the cost of say, a blood transfusion, is perfectly fine even though some religions prohibit those as well.

    Dear Bishops, please either stop pretending this is about anything but controlling women, or at least be consistent and oppose insurance coverage of other medical procedures religion opposes.

    No easy hopes or lies shall bring us to our goal, but iron sacrifice of body, will, and soul. - For All We Have and Are

    by Ms Pris on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:35:40 AM PDT

  •  idk who's worse - republicans or roman catholics? (0+ / 0-)

    i left the church years ago when i discovered that they killed, killed, killed in the name of Jesus throughout their hate-filled existence, both through wars and killing non believers throughout history too and adding an atmosphere which allows gay people and women to be killed today.

    but the popes from the recent past - that is, from pius xi to the current benedict xvi, have turned the church into an even crueler weapon of destruc-tion to millions of innocent peoples in the world by sheer superstition and demagoguery pure and simple. it's no wonder that john the apostle is believed to have referred to the roman catholic church as the whore of babylon, the whore who sits on seven hills.

    people of reason should discount every single word to come from the mouths of the criminal hierarchy of the catholic church because those words are motivated by intolerance while still reaping $billions from their own members

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site