<p>What I don’t understand is why contraception should be provided at no cost. There are other, more crucial, medications that are not provided at no cost.</p>
<p>“And practicing Catholics poll very differently from self-described Catholics on most every issue, including support for/participation in abortions.”</p>
<p>I suspect that Catholics who are “practicing” are actually more likely to have abortions than non-practicing ones. And for one simple reason: practicing Catholics are way more likely to be women.</p>
<p>Please note, Claremarie, that the document you linked doesn’t use the word “practicing” at all.</p>
<p>“What I don’t understand is why contraception should be provided at no cost.”</p>
<p>Because it is a preventive health service.</p>
<p>As much as I am in favor of contraception, I agree with zoosermom. Everything should cost at least “a little.”</p>
<p>Thank you claremarie. I was sure the Church did make differentiation but didn’t have the facts to post. My opinion was they would poll differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it saves money. It’s not a question of crucial or not, preventative medicine saves money and insurance companies want to encourage people to use it for that very reason.</p>
<p>^That is a good reason.</p>
<p>I think it’s ludicrous for employed, competent adults to be provided “free” birth control. Let them pay for their own needs. As far as prevenatative medicine, I’d much rather see free condoms given to everyone who wants them. Condoms actually do prevent disease and they protect men, too. Although I suspect there are some people who aren’t interested in protecting males.</p>
<p>Claremarie, I defer to you on what the Church calls a practicing Catholic. But surveys don’t ask the Church, but the individual surveyed, about his or her religion. If a person says she is a practicing Catholic and she has had an abortion, the survey will count her as a Catholic who has had an abortion. If a person says she is a Catholic registered voter and plans to vote for Candidate X, the survey will count her as a Catholic registered voter for X.</p>
<p>So, when we look at surveys and see Z% of Catholics believe <some random="" thing="">, that no doubt includes a lot of people you wouldn’t say were Catholics. Doesn’t matter; we interpret the surveys by what the people said, not whether they are in a state of mortal sin.</some></p>
<p>
It’s only a good reason if all drugs falling into the preventative category were provided at no cost to the recipient. Why on earth should birth control pills be treated differently than other drugs? Hmm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this too. It reminds me of how we all pay taxes to support our local public schools, even if we don’t have kids who go there. If it benefits all of us, we should support it (increased property values - yay). If not, then let those who benefit pay for it.</p>
<p>If the rationale is that preventive health care should be free then why not other preventive medications. How about free nicotine patches, free methadone, free high cholesterol meds, the list could go on and on. </p>
<p>To me it is troubling that a government could mandate such things. If one administration can give, another could take away or mandate some other free treatment or mandate that something else will not be covered.</p>
<p>Remember, we’re specifically talking about employer provided insurance, so presumably there is a job and a salary involved, not poor people unable to bear the cost. My opinion on that would be different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. It should be a business decision. If the government wants to pay for all of those things, then it should have its own doctors and clinics that do so.</p>
<p>Clairmarie and Bay, please refer back to my post, #204, regarding an instance here a Catholic HMO owned the only hospital in town, and then purchased the previously physician owned clinic in town. ALL of the employees who had previously been employed by the clinic became employees of the catholic HMO. </p>
<p>By the way, my husband was one of the OB-GYNs affected by the purchase, and by the kerfluffle about sterilization proceedures for non Catholics being curtailed by the Catholic HMO. We left the practice. Most of the remaining OBs retired. All but one of the urologists left.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Statins prevent heart attacks, Prophylactic mastectomy prevents breast cancer, DH’s heart medication prevents arrhythmia, my dad’s eye drops prevent glaucoma, chiropractic care prevents back surgery…and yet there is a co-pay, or no coverage at all. So how is BC special in the preventative department. It is word play, and word play/definitions can and do change.</p>
<p>eastcoascrazy,</p>
<p>Post #204: hypocrisy at its finest.</p>
<p>Re: your reaction. I appreciate it.</p>
<p>I really do feel like many posters here are almost blinded by an ideology that prevents them from seeing the big picture. Thus they are feeling their way to wrong directions, because they cannot possibly see the ramifications of their own positions. Where that leads, we can only guess (and perhaps hope we don’t live to bear witness to).</p>
<p>^^ Well, one ramification reared its head today in Virginia. The “personhood” issue is back, with a repugnant new twist.</p>
<p>[Virginia</a> Ultrasound Bill](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Virginia Ultrasound Bill: Republican Lawmaker Calls Abortion 'Lifestyle Convenience' | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>Yep, that procedure. The woman would be forced to undergo it, and neither she nor her doctor could refuse it. Raped by the state of Virginia – quite literally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that you clearly bolded is what I was referring to. Approximately “52% of American Catholic voters agree” with the mandate. That means that half (48%) do not. And having no opinion means just that they have no opinion, and by definition do not support the mandate. (If they supported the mandate, they would have an opinion!) But even if we assume only 43% are opposed, that is one heckuva lot of voters, which the Prez cannot afford to lose. Thus, my point is still correct. (And of course, the link that you posted just goes to demonstrate that not everyone concurs with the opinions expressed by many on cc.)</p>
<p>Moreover, since you raised the issue of survey wording…note, that the survey asks about employers in general. It does not address whether the respondent would have the same answer if the generic ‘employer’ was changed to Church (as the employer).</p>