A bit of an offshoot from the separation question. Here are some basic facts:
83% of sexually active Catholic women who are not actively trying to get pregnant use artificial birth control (condoms, iud, tubal ligation, hormone-based pills, etc)
57% of Catholic voters support the bc mandate in Obamacare
The Catholic process of excommunication is not a lifetime ban from the church, but rather, a ban on taking holy communion until repenting and giving up the behavior leading to excommunication. The church recently forbid an entire family from taking communion based on something a teenager in the family posted on facebook.
The data I linked is pretty common knowledge. It was reported in every major news source in the country. The Vatican has a public relations and media department to rival any other country or major corporation, so it is impossible for it to not be aware of that data.
So now the question - if the church feels so strongly about the inherent sin of birth control, why is it focusing all its energy on attending the mote in their neighbor's eye (by denying their non-Catholic employees access to birth control) instead of attending the beam in their own (by calling out all the Catholic women who use birth control, asking them the question point blank, and then denying communion to any who refuse to stop using it)?
Not that I feel Catholic women should be spiritually extorted, but, it is the faith they choose to practice with no guns to their heads. How can the church possibly be considered credible in its FISCAL stance against BC when it makes no move whatsoever to address the SPIRITUAL transgression in its own congregations?
Answer by amazinggrace83 at 12:50 PM on Nov. 27, 2012
Answer by anime_mom619 at 2:19 PM on Nov. 26, 2012
Answer by RyansMom001 at 11:23 PM on Nov. 25, 2012
Answer by RyansMom001 at 11:16 PM on Nov. 25, 2012
I don't care if women take birth control or not I just dont understand why this medication needs special presidential insistence that it be covered when so many important medications aren't. Prescriptions are expensive, BC is relatively affordable when compared to cancer and high blood pressure meds. Just because a drug is covered doesn't mean it's paid for 100%. Drugs that are routinely covered by insurance often have a higher mark up. I just don't think BC needs a special presidential seal. It sould be treated like other meds, they are ignored by congress. I rather have cancer meds with a cap on mark up, or that they be covered at 100%. Be a beam help dying patients afford their meds.
Answer by RyansMom001 at 11:03 PM on Nov. 25, 2012
Answer by older at 7:56 PM on Nov. 25, 2012
Answer by lga1965 at 7:10 PM on Nov. 25, 2012