LOL

[averygoodun42]

But Democrats said the amendment would limit access to contraception and infringe on women's rights at a time when Congress needs to focus on the economy and employment. "These aren't the issues we should be debating right now," Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said on the Senate floor.

Following Thursday's vote, Blunt accused Democrats of playing politics with the issue.


Playing politics with the issue? Seriously? And who started this whole brouhaha in the first place? At least most senators realized that with Obama's compromise, it's a non-issue now. (Not to mention they know where most of their constituents stand on this issue.)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Comments

[m-mcgonagall-65.livejournal.com]

This isn't playing politics! If you understood how some church bodies/organizations insure their workers, you would understand why Obama's compromise doesn't take care of the issue of infringing on religious freedom.

The liberal media should have the right of free speech, and conservative religious groups should have the freedom to practice their religion.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

You mean co-ops? Perhaps there should be a workaround for them, but honestly, I think human rights trumps freedom of religion in this case.

It might just be my inherent distrust of religious organizations and their treatment of women, but I think freedom to be equal is more important than protecting organizational dogma (that's usually disregarded anyway). Those who follow the creed of their religion don't have to opt in, but if it's a business (churches and religious institutions are exempted, just not businesses), their employees have the right to the same options as everyone else.

Besides which, it isn't the freedom of the church that's protected in the Constitution, it's the practice of religion. There's a fairly large difference there.

So yes, this is playing politics.

[m-mcgonagall-65.livejournal.com]

Church bodies and religious organizations who self-insure are not exempted. And having to support the self-insured program affects the consciences of the people who have to pay for the program. That affects people who want to practice their relgion, not just churches. Whether or not you agree with people who seriously hold to their religious dogma isn't the point. The point is that the constitution guarantees them this freedom. It does not guarantee the freedom to have free medicines. Nor does it guarantee that every private company has to offer the same products as every other private company in the same industry.

Furthermore, free contraceptives are available to people who can't afford to pay for them through organizations like Planned Parenthood. Most people who have jobs with insurance can probably manage to pay for contraceptives. If having contraceptives paid for by insurance is important to a person, he or she can choose to not work for the church body or religious organization that chooses not to pay for contraceptives in their private insurance program. Being able to choose to move from one job to another in order to seek pay or benefits that will increase job satisfaction is something I would consider to be a freedom. Forcing all private companies to offer the same product is not what I would call freedom.

So I will have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that this is just playing politics. :)

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Yes, churches are exempt. Even the self-insured.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/15/self-insuring-faith-groups-exempt-from-contracepti/

This really, really is a non-issue that the conservatives are using as a smoke-screen. Hence the "playing politics" title going to them, in this case.