http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/02/10/birth-control-debate-exposes-desired-social-control-from-catholic-bishops/


I just read this blog on FireDogLake and I am a little confused by it.  From what I understand, Obama has made it so insurance can be used in acquiring birth control.  But, religious universities and religious institutions do not have to oblige because of moral and religious objections.  So, the New York Archbishop thinks that the compromise is not satisfactory because the employees that work for said religious institutions that have their insurance paid for by these institutions will, in a sense, have their contraception paid for by these institutions.  He feels that the church is paying for it in a round about way.  He says that he is worried about "government intrusion into issues of faith and morals", but yet it is the Catholic church and supporters that are the intruders.  I understand that Catholics and some Christians are against contraception and other things, such as gay marriage, or just homosexuality in general, but it is they that force their morals onto others and heavily lean on politicians to regulate these morals.  I don't understand why these factions need legislation to enforce their religious beliefs.  Don't they believe that their followers have minds of their own and can decide their own morality?  Or, is that the reason for the legislation?  They are afraid that they do have their own minds and will not do as they claim to believe should be done?  Why legislation for who gets birth control with the help of insurance?  If you are Catholic, and believe that contraception is not in line with your morals, then don't participate.  Don't get birth control.  Don't use your insurance for contraception.  Why do we need a law to provide an exemption for them?  Why not let people decide for themselves what is right for them?  Same as gay marriage....if my gay friend decides to marry his/her partner, how does that adversely affect my life or yours?  If I decide I don't agree that gays should marry, why does that mean I have a say in whether they do or don't ?  I would love to live in a world where we are free to worship as we please, love as we please, use birth control if we please (and have insurance to help pay for it), or just live freely without the "intrusion" of religion or government.   I am more worried about the uninsured being able to afford insurance than this dumb arguing over whether or not the insured can use it for reproductive services.  I think that we need to stop arguing over the morality of a few and worry more about the hundreds of thousands of uninsured people living under the poverty line.  It seems that there are more important things to worry about than a condom or birth control pill and who has access to it through insurance. 

I think that this article is worth reading because it just reinforces the antiquated foundation that politicians seem to base all decisons.  It is worth reading just for the sense of oxymoron that the Archbishop uses in his reasoning for wanting the bill revisited.  I think it is another step along the slippery slope in regulating the rights of women.  I think all women need to read this blog for the simple fact that whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, it affects all of our rights in the long run.  Each little stab at that needs to be known.

Just my two cents.