.
Opinion: Contraception denigrates me as a woman
Pokorny: "Should I so easily accept... that I need to alter a part of myself that’s working properly in order to be free or fulfilled?"
February 15th, 2012
04:22 PM ET

Opinion: Contraception denigrates me as a woman

Editor’s Note: Valerie Pokorny is actively involved in marriage preparation programs, natural family planning instruction and chastity education in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, Texas. 

An opposing view can be read here.

By Valerie Pokorny, Special to CNN

(CNN) - In the face of the Health and Human Services mandate to provide contraception coverage, I stand with my fellow Catholics hoping our religious freedom will be respected.

But more importantly, I stand as a woman hoping who I am will be respected.

Four times a year, I walk into a room of Catholic moms and their middle school or high school daughters to help them see why being a woman matters, as part of the Archdiocese of San Antonio’s Mother-Daughter Programs on the Gift of Femininity.

I tell them it’s no accident that they are women, that women are equal to men in personal dignity, and that men and women are different by design. Those differences are meant to work together for the benefit of each individual, but also for the benefit of the world around them. I tell them there’s such a thing as the genius of women - and that the world needs them to cherish this in themselves and strive to live it out to the fullest because it is good. The world would be impoverished without it.

To make it more practical, I pass out a few popular magazines straight from the checkout lane. I ask them to tag several examples of “girl genius.” They eagerly start flipping through the pages. After a few minutes, I ask each group to share the examples they found.

Then I ask if they ran into any obstacles in looking for those examples of girl genius. 'Yes,' they respond. The view of women in these magazines is often focused on appearances and overtly sexualized. They sense the pressure to conform to standards that lower the bar for both men and women alike.

They see glimpses of women being valued for their skill, their intelligence, their abilities, the positive contributions they make to the world around them, often including motherhood. But those glimpses are overshadowed by racy headlines and flashy displays of the latest trends in personal care, sexual techniques, or celebrity gossip.

All acknowledge that the values society sets for woman don’t always measure up to the fullness of her personal dignity. They separate, reduce, commoditize, selectively ignore, and sometimes outright reject certain aspects of woman, subjecting her to powerful pressure to conform.

Indeed, throughout history woman has been at a sore disadvantage in terms of having the freedom to thrive and contribute her many, varied gifts to society.

This is why I find the case made by our current administration in regard to the Health and Human Services mandate so difficult to swallow.

The Obama administration’s primary talking point on this issue is that “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health.”

I agree. 100 percent.

But from there, the defense sounds like slick advertising for the contraceptive industry: To be a healthy woman, you need contraception. All the successful women use it. You can’t live without it.

Should I so easily accept the implication that I need to alter a part of myself that’s working properly in order to be free or fulfilled? I find this premise tremendously offensive. To me, this exerts pressure tantamount to that felt by women who purge after eating to attain or maintain a particular body image. It encourages women to think that their value is somehow intrinsically tied to how sexually available and desirable they are.

I thought the whole moral obligation to fulfill a husband’s sexual needs was a thing of the past... but alas, it’s been repackaged for a new secular generation. Women are still evaluated heavily on the basis of their uninhibited sexual availability, which contraception ensures precisely by severing women from their fertility.  (When a woman uses “contraception” for medical reasons other than preventing a pregnancy it's not technically contraception, and the Catholic Church doesn't necessarily prohibit these uses.)

My fertility is not a disease. It does not need to be repressed, manipulated, or rejected. It ought to be accepted and respected accordingly, by individuals and by society as a whole. And if that means exercising a bit of self control now and then, well, that’s a hell of a lot more dignified than saying, “Eh, we got this pill that makes self control unnecessary. I want pleasure now. Let’s get it on!”

Which begs the further question: Why do we tend to treat woman as if she is always fertile? It seems to me informed fertility awareness would be a game-changer for many women, helping them to understand and care for their overall reproductive health instead of feeling a need to simply control their fertility. Modern fertility-awareness-based methods (many of which fall under the umbrella term Natural Family Planning, or NFP) empower both women and men with accurate knowledge about a woman’s individual, unique reproductive cycle based on observable fertility signs, such as basal body temperature and changes in cervical mucus, that tell them when ovulation occurs.

I’ve found most people write off NFP because they think it’s outdated, ineffective, or only works for women with regular cycles. Frankly, I don’t think they understand what modern NFP entails. The so-called rhythm, or calendar, approach is to today’s NFP like the Model T is to today’s automobile industry: First formalized in the 1930s, it was based on the scientific knowledge available in its day, but we’ve come a long way since then.

Even secular sources are wising up to the benefits of modern fertility-awareness-based methods, which can not only be effective at avoiding pregnancy, but can even help to diagnose and treat causes of infertility. I urge skeptics to research specific modern methods such as the Sympto-Thermal Method, the Creighton Model, or the Marquette Model (which incorporates a fertility monitor.)

I’m all for the progress of woman. Let’s just make sure in promoting her progress, we don’t reject something that is inherently part of her in the first place.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Valerie Pokorny.

Posted by
Filed under: Health • Religion • What we think • Women
soundoff (1,442 Responses)
  1. SM

    Does anyone know if any other procedure/medication has been required to be covered like the birth control requirement? Is there any other procedure/medication required to be paid out at 100%?

    March 5, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      Sure. Much of my standard dental treatments are covered 100% under my plan. I know there are some medications I have never had to pay for, but they are typically irregular things for temporary illness.
      I do not know, though, if those were due to requirements. If there are such a thing on the legal side, they should be readily identifiable with a little research.

      March 5, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • SM

        I think those procedures are part of the plan the employer decides to sign a contract with the insurance company for. My health plan offers an annual exam covered at 100%, but I always assumed that it was about the agreement my employer has with the insurance company. The impression is given in all of the rhetoric that birth control is the first requirement of its kind. But no one ever says so directly.

        March 5, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Without some direct statement, there is not much point in worrying about impressions of the hypothetical. If you are concerned that misinformation is being spread, raise the question as you did here.

        It is an important process to question both factual statements and innuendo so that we all go away from this wiser than when we started.

        March 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • SM

        I meant to say "requirement by the government."

        March 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
  2. gginsandiego

    Why don't they get on men's cases for taking viagra? Oh, somehow that's different? Let women decide about contraception but for "god's" sake, give them a choice. And the choice should be available to the poor as well as to the rich. After all, it's the poor who will have a more difficult time supporting their offspring.

    March 5, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • PamelaC

      Good question! Why is it so important to help men get erections which might or might not be used in ways sanctioned by the church, but women can't protect themselves from pregnancy? I find that grossly unfair and unequal, except that, of course, it's MEN making the decisions in the catholic church. If it were women... Well, the majority of practicing Catholic women support contraception. (I am not Catholic.).

      March 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Report abuse |
  3. blaqb0x

    Hmmm, in most other species animals are only fertile and able to mate on specific times of the year. Why would g-o-d design humans to be fertile all year round?

    March 5, 2012 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Shayna

      Maybe god had nothing to do with it

      March 5, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Cynthia

    I am all for Natural Family Planning, however, I am also all for all insurance company's being required to help to pay for Birth Control Pills. The only issue I see is that a male dominated congress is willing to approve insurances to pay on Viagra only 1 year after it was approved in the U.S. BUT still won't approve Birth Control pills which have been available for 20-30 years!
    They speak of how men "need" Viagra for physiological well-being,... Why are they not concerned for a women's physiological well-being? It is because they do not understand, nor care to understand, how much stress it puts on some women constantly fearing they will become pregnant. Granted a women's fear may be due to she is being promiscuous, however, it also may be due to other reasons (physical, physiological, financial,...) which is frankly none of congress' business.
    My second child was born with Cerebral Palsy, which I always felt that was my fault due to I was unable to push her out quickly (she was a very large baby). I remained a happily married Catholic nurse who had been trained & used Natural Planning method. I decided I did not want to physically have another baby so we decided to adopt for our 3rd child due to my deep inner fear of me having problems delivering another baby. Several years later I unexpectedly became pregnant, which was the day my entire family's lives changed. Surprisingly I went into a deep, disabling depression and was frequently unable to care for my two young children, household duty's and struggled through my part-time job. I was suicidal & once even briefly entertained the thought of abortion, even though I headed up & started a Birth Right office several years prior to this! Years later my husband & I divorced, as I continued to have problems with depression (I never had any depression be for this event).
    My point is: NO ONE ELSE knows what is going on inside someones mind! So everyone, especially men, need to STOP the ridicule of women, especially on things that involving women's health issues, and let WOMEN be the ones that make these decisions, including whether congress should put Birth Control Pills on the list that insurances must pay for!

    March 5, 2012 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  5. Val

    I am not a rabbit.

    March 5, 2012 at 9:11 am | Report abuse |
  6. Sheila

    A Very good article, and I commend this woman for speaking on who and what we are and that there is nothing wrong with being fertile. However, the New World Order trying to put in place a new world government where everyone is tracked and controlled wants to reduce the population. So when you see them pushing population control methods remember it is both political and not of God.

    March 4, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      Why not go live in India for a year, maybe China or the ghettos of America. Find "Godly" answers for these people and maybe some viable answers for the 500,000 children in fostercare in theUSA. New world order? I suppose you coukld say this as we pay for more prisons to take care of the unwanted and unloved who end up in prison.

      March 4, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      So when you think about your nation, fellow citizens and the laws your participate in, remember it is both political and not of God.

      March 5, 2012 at 12:51 am | Report abuse |
  7. Sophia

    As a child, my family's life centered around the Roman Catholic Church. More than a few things the Catholic Church, as well as other churches, taught were illogical to me – un-baptized babies who went to purgatory and wouldn't be allowed in heaven – yeah, right, etc. On the whole, I gained from the MORALS I was taught at parochial school and at church because I ignored the REALLY IGNORANT messages. As an adult I shared my horror that the Catholic Church would promulgate the message to go forth and multiply to people who had no food to feed their existing families. Mother Theresa, for all her goodness, could have been a lot more effective had she been able to distribute birth control among the poor of Calcutta. As an adult, I reject the Catholic Church and find much more peace and logic in Buddhism. The Catholic Church is dying because, due to its stupidity, it has taken such a strong stand against contraception and no stand whatsoever against its pedophilia cancer. And don't ask me what I think of the right wing Baptists or any of the other hypocritical religions, who are so pro-life, but are so against social welfare programs that poor women and children are so in need of – and including the Jewish Zionists of Israel, who have become the oppressors and land-grabbers of the Palestinians. If these pro-life zealots who don’t give a rat’s you-know-what about the poor are successful, we will become America, the newest third-world country. Wake up, America – you are being brainwashed!

    March 4, 2012 at 9:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • sharonaz

      I so agree with you and am in the exact position as you. I too, was raised Catholic and now consider the Eastern religions to be more of a "practice" that benefits the individuals and humanity. Catholic religious dogma and hypocrosy doesn't work for me as a thinking adult. I see nothing wrong with preventing unwanted pregnancies and giving women the option to reach their highest potential, which may or may not be motherhood.

      March 5, 2012 at 7:51 am | Report abuse |
  8. RuthAnne Isbell

    Not that anyone will read this in the THOUSANDS of responses, but contraception saves my life and my finances EVERY DAY. I am married, I have 3 kids. I have an incompetent cervix, and my kids are born at 24 weeks or less without an intervening surgery to help save them and me (I lose tremendous amounts of blood due to hemorrhage).I choose to have an IUD, to save me and my family of the heartbreak of burying children (we lost a son, our fourth) or having me out of commission for my entire pregnancy. Please do not interject your religion into the decisions made by me and my husband and my doctor. It is not enough that I choose not to have abortions when I am pregnant, you judge me for not having premature baby (and subsequent funeral) after premature baby. I find this argument to be so outrageous, Stay out of my uterus, I do not get all up in yours....

    March 3, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • willowspring

      RuthAnne. You obviously have a very serious health issue. Valerie addressed this in her article. She speaks from a Catholic viewpoint, but she also speaks for all women. My heart breaks for a woman who wishes to have a child and cannot for whatever reason. So if that is your case, my prayers are for you. However, if you read this article objectively, you should be able to understand that Valerie is speaking about a different way of handling a woman's cycle, which is far more natural and healthy. Aside from the fact that contraception has become a way of life for many women for the sake of convenience or whatever, many seem to have adverse reactions, in fact, some pills have been deemed dangerous enough to cause serious problems and have led to class action lawsuits because of deaths resulting from their use. Many women also have weight gain that is directly attributed to the pills. When there is a perfectly natural way to handle fertility cycles, why would women not avail themselves of the most cost effective way to not have children, and that is abstinence during the few days that are the window of fertility.

      March 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        and if Ruthann doesn't get it exactly right and becomes pregnant? Puleese! Viagra, which is perfectly acceptable by the catholic church also has some serious health side effects like...death, priapism, loss of hearing, loss of eyesight, heart attack etc. If "God" had intended for every man to be able to "do his thing", every man would be able to do so. Viagra would not be needed. Insurances pay for Viagra. Do NOT try to twist things to make Viagra a way of naturalizing things. It is a (so called) better life through chemistry.....for men. Most churches are a male dominated and women subordinated set up and the Catholic church is a prime example.

        March 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Insurance DOES pay for Viagra!!!

        March 4, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Samantha, I don't know if we should even bother to answer willowspring anymore. She obviously doesn't accept logical arguments. I've explained to her, as have you, that we all pay for things covered by insurance and taxes that we don't approve of or agree with...or want to have any responsibility for, but she ignores all that. Apparently, only HER views matter. I don't hear any Catholics complaining about the $1.5 billion our tax dollars went toward. But people like her only want to complain about this administration trampling on their religious views. I don't hear them apologizing over the fact that all citizens pay for the unwanted babies they insist must be born. I don't see their faith rushing to take responsibility of these children once they are born. No, they are perfectly content to let us share that burden with them. They are so hypocritical.

        March 4, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        lili, there is a mantra that some posters keep on posting and that is all they know. Never once did any of them answer about the 500,000 children in fostercare, or the millions on welfare. Never did they answer to the complications of pregnancy & childbirth because of a simple controllable issue....overweight. Never have they answered to the J.Witness who helps to pay for blood with their insurance premiums, even tho it is a sin for JWs to receive blood. Nope, It is all about the few who BOO HOO HOO and what they want to pay for or not pay for. The only sin is what they deem "sin". Selfish & self rightous....what a combo!

        March 4, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        You're so right, Samantha. They have never commented on the fact that under Obama, they have rec'd $1.5 billion for their Catholic programs and had no problems accepting it, despite the fact that they claim he is trampling on their religious rights. Hypocrites. They never do answer about the fact that we all pay for unwanted and wanted children through our insurance premiums and/or taxes, whether we have children or not. No one has answered when I claim I find it morally wrong for women on welfare to keep having those unwanted babies, yet my tax dollars go for their support. Like you, I don't see the Christians in question stepping up to the plate to take care of all those children. So we're supposed to pay for their choices, but they don't want to pay for ours? Again, hypocrites. Thanks for your posts.

        March 4, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        lili, It does warm my heart that Rush Limbaugh is on willow's side. The thrice married, childless, drug addict who wants to watch movies of sx......I wonder WHY he is childless???

        March 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Samantha, whatever the reason, thank God! He literally makes me want to vomit. So filthy minded and disgusting, so depraved. I've written several emails to his sponsors denouncing his remarks about Sandra Fluke and asking them, along with two of his sponsors who have suspended their support, to stop support of him altogether or I will stop supporting them. It's disgraceful that he is on the air spewing his filth. I am embarrassed that Rush is a fellow American.

        March 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        I am thinking there are one or two posters who change their names. It's like a poster disappears and someone new begins to post who hadn't posted before. Considering this is an old item now and is closed to posts that are not under another post.....It is interesting that a new name begins the same old mantra.

        March 5, 2012 at 2:47 am | Report abuse |
      • Tonya

        Samantha....
        wish I knew why you were sooo angry and why you spend so much time fighting here. I wish you peace.

        March 5, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Tonya, I am not angry in general, but I am specifically angry at some people. They whine & BOO HOO for themselves and dismiss some important issues or they answer them with the same mantra. Some of us have asked some important questions and we get no answers. I am angry that all too often women who believe the use of contraceptives as "sin" are too often overweight/obese when they enter a pregnancy and/or during the pregnancy, knowing they and their fetus are at risk. This to me is a double standard of what sin is where reproduction is concerned. I am angry when I read everyday in the news the injury of children being injured/murdered by the adult(s) responsible for their well being. I am angry when I read about our fostercare system, about so many physically/mentally challenged children whose parents cannot take care of them and give them to "the system". Of healthy children in FC who were not taken care of and suffered before FC received them. I am angry there are youngsters walking the streets because they ran away or were kicked out of their homes. I am angry there is a different view of what is acceptable for men to enhance their lives through chemistry, yet women are judged negatively should they do so....in the name of religion. I am angry that some parents/parents to be will purposely get pregnant knowing that thier baby will be high risk for devasting anomalies....this is child abuse afore thought. I will NEVER stop being angry till America and Americans can take care of our living children before reproducing more children. The "right to life" in our country is actually all too often limited to "the right to birth". My question for you is.....WHY are YOU not angry!!!

        March 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • HaveAChoice

        Valerie Pokorny choice to not take contraceptives and work things out the natural should be applauded. She should be happy she has that choice. I use birth control and that is my choice. This health care bill is not mandating that simpy because your insurance company must cover it that you have to take it. What it does is say that if you as a woman make the decsion to take birth control for any health reason (prevent pregnancy or other health issue) that it will be available to you and you will not have to worry about whether or not you can afford it. It is not a luxery.

        I am envious of women who have children.Motherhood is a beautful thing when the woman is ready and able to assume that responsibility. Unfortunately for me being able to conceive much less carry to term are slim to none (The only reason why at 30 I even have a slim chance is because of birth control).

        March 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Natalie

      Ruth Anne,

      No one wants to take away your right to birth control. I am sorry for the difficulties you have suffered. You are blessed with your three children and your husband and it should stay that way. The Catholic Church does not want to interfere with any of your choices or difficulties. The Catholic Church is not against birth control for medical purposes,nor as you might imagine, does the Church control the millions of Catholics that use birth control. It is a choice. The article simply suggests that that Catholic Church believes that birth control is not in the best interest of marriage and family.

      Imagine if you are an animal rights activist. Imagine if the thought of killing animals hurts you. Imagine if Obama suggested you buy the guns needed to kill animals. Imagine the outrage! This is similar. Catholic hospitals and facilities have worked for decades to take care of people of all faiths. They are now told they must support something they believe to be destructive to families. That is it...no need to worry or be offended.

      Blessings to your family.

      March 5, 2012 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
  9. ONichole

    I believe that anytime you attempt to use religion to make policy decisions that affect the entire country you are making a step in the wrong direction. Contraception should be "free" for women..in reality, it works the same way the free wellness visits work, they would rather cut cost on the front in, such as decrease cost associated with labor and delivery, or pcos, or fibroid cyst,sick days associated that are associated with, if you have any of those ailments..its a money thing..wake up

    March 3, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  10. WCCT

    Indeed, throughout history woman has been at a sore disadvantage in terms of having the freedom to thrive and contribute her many, varied gifts to society.

    Thanks in large part to religion, I might add.

    March 3, 2012 at 4:09 am | Report abuse |
  11. Flora

    I once found an explination of how NFP works, and I have to call "bupkiss". Apparently, NFP is a methos for monitering the cycles in which a woman is most likely to concieve & least likely to concieve over the course of her month-long cycle. Under NFP, a woman would only be able to safely have s e x in the short 2 – 4 days window just before her period, when she's the most (naturally) infertile.

    Here's the catch; no non-sterile woman is ever fully infertile. Unless you pair these dates with the use of a condom (also explicitly banned by the Catholic Church), you're still in eminent danger of becoming pregnant. Thus, NFP is not effective BC, it's simply an attempt to hedge your bets. So, unless Catholic business are willing to cover condoms or spermicide in leiu of the pill, they are in fact punishing you for using contraceptives.

    March 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      Try this instead, from a non-biased research group in Europe that studies EVERYTHING, not just things that Catholics want done. They found that the symptothermal method of NFP has been proven to be 99.6% effective. That meets or exceeds conventional forms of contraception.

      Published in 2007
      humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.full.pdf+html?sid=77d035bd-d4e1-4195-bcaf-ce1418a01098

      March 2, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        So what? It still requires abstention for a week at minimum. People want all the options to remain available to them.

        March 2, 2012 at 8:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      "I once found an explanation" is hardly a convincing argument. While every woman is different, my books generally say that a couple who wants to avoid pregnancy can still have intercourse about half the month under NFP, abstaining for a max of 8.5-9.5 days in a row.

      March 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • MammaB

      Flora, I think you have misunderstood how modern NFP works – it can be quite confusing until you actually attempt to use the system. It is very involved and requires far more work than other birth control methods, but it works quite well. The name for the method found in the highly recommended book,Taking Charge of Your Fertility, is the Fertility Awareness Method. This is far more descriptive of what it really entails.

      I am unable to use hormonal birth controls. As a result, my husband and I used FAM for years both to avoid having children and to successfully conceive two children. I have a cycle shorter than "average" by 3-4 days each month and we still had well over the claimed 2-4 days when we were safe! If nothing else, using FAM taught me so much about my own body. Even now, I can tell you within a day or so what is happening with my body in terms of fertility cycles. I know what is happening to me and I feel so much more in control of my body because I took the time to learn about it. Personally, I think every woman should be taught some of the basic concepts of fertility awareness even if she chooses to use some other method for family planning.

      March 2, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Flora

        And what about for the people who don't even want to take the remotest CHANCE of becoming pregnant. No one form of BC ("natural" or "unnatural") is 100% foolproof, I know, but it certainly a lot safer than winging it and hoping that you read your body right that month. As someone with a family history or reproductive issues, there's a good chance that it might be downright dangerous for me to become pregnant, but I don't want to go through the early menopause that comes with a hystorectomy (sp?). Not only that, but I simply don't like kids. Never did, never will. This lady can squawk about how beautiful it is to be able to give birth, but I hope that it never comes to pass with me & I'm willing to use every safe method available to keep it so, including abortion. Why have a kid that most likely won't even like, let alone love?

        The Church can't have it both ways – either they help women like me get contraceptives to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, or shut up when I decide to have it terminated.

        March 3, 2012 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Flora, I love and respect your honesty. There will be a few narrow minded who believe that if you have a baby, you'll automatically love it. Unfortunately when we actually pay attention to the news and to the numbers of children in fostercare, the reality is the opposite. The selfish ones are people who bring children in the world to satisfy their own needs, and it is okay to get pregnant knowing the fetus is high risk for severe anomalies. Or get pregnant and then not have the means to take care of their children. Others feel it is "a duty" to bear children. The children are always the ones who lose. I applaud you for saying it like it is. There are many who feel as you do and save the lives of many children simply by insuring they are not conceived/ born.

        I also think there are many people who do not want to bring children in this world cause there are so many needy children without parents. These people are some of the most unselfish people in our world. They adopt.

        March 4, 2012 at 1:53 am | Report abuse |
  12. Marc Daniels

    Anytime a minority attempts to impose their chosen ethics or religious dogma over the will of the majority, this is dangerous. No one is forcing anyone to take the pill against their own wishes. If people would spend more time, weeding out hate in their hearts through their own chosen religious beliefs, society would develop a resistance for this kind of politicalization. Let's weed out hate and sow the seeds of peace and respect in each other!

    March 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Report abuse |
  13. ProgressiveMike

    She was doing well until this: "But from there, the defense sounds like slick advertising for the contraceptive industry: To be a healthy woman, you need contraception. All the successful women use it. You can’t live without it." This, of course, is complete, subjective, conservative-talking-point rubbish. NOBODY IS TELLING, OR TRYING TO TELL, WOMEN WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK, OR WHAT THEY NEED AND DON'T NEED! Conservatives, why is that so hard for you to understand? No, what's going on here, is an effort to ensure that ANY women who WANT AND NEED ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES, cannot be DENIED ACCESS because of their EMPLOYERS' motivation to deny it. C'mon, get real... nobody is trying to FORCE any employer to provide this benefit to women employees AGAINST THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM. Contraception is a longstanding, recognized health benefit for American women, to which they rightfully demand access without interference from churches, right-wing anti-contraception "foundations" and other such front organizations for the Repub/Conservative social agenda of controlling citizens' personal affairs.

    March 2, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      Mike, they can still have access. Their doctor can still prescribe it. But it's ridiculous to mandate that all living people must have coverage that includes it with no co-pay, all employers must pay for it, and all insurance plans must include it, or be found in violation of the law is insanely un-American. The so-called "compromise" where certain qualifying groups don't have to pay for it, but insurance companies still have to provide it, is a ridiculous accounting game. Insurance companies have to fund it somehow. When Catholics push for a law that outlaws birth control pills in all cases for all people, fine, we'll have a new debate then.

      March 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Christian Taliban

      @CMoses.... the problem we face here is that if it's OK for Roman Catholic, Inc. to say No, we will not provide or pay for a plan that allows contraception, then what's to stop GE, IBM, or any other company from line item forbidding certain procedures, treatments, or therapies for whatever reason they choose? They will have the absolute right to do so. Also, contraceptive meds are know to provide relief in cases of endometriosis. Should that also be disregarded because a few vocal Christians are offended? Sorry, there is no logical argument to made here.

      March 3, 2012 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      Explain to me why ANY company shouldn't be able to decide what they want their insurance to cover, whether it's for religious convictions or simply for cost concerns. What right does the US government have to dictate what level of services a service provider MUST provide.

      In addition, the Catholic Church fully recognizes non-contraceptive uses of many types of birth control pills and does not teach against using them for those purposes. But the mandate includes a lot of abortifacient drugs and procedures that do not have such dual-purposes.

      March 7, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        You should be very relieved that if insurances were allowed to base their coverages on cost concerns, prenatal care & childbirth would be low on the bucket list of what is cost effective. BCPs would win hands down because it is SOOOO much cheaper. For those of us who cannot have children or do not want to have children, we would love not to have to pay a large part of our insurance premiums for those who do want children. Your argument doesn't make sense except to you and to a few who refuse to look at the whole picture. If any organization, religious or secular is receivng monies from federal/state governments,ALL should abide by the policies of the government....or NOT take the money. You can NOT live life according to how you want to live it without the help of the rest of us who pay into insurance. The Catholic church would not be able to receive federal/state funds if it weren't for us noncatholic tax payers. We have no choice about it at all. You want what you want, the way you want it, but you don't see the rest of us justified for what we want. To me, your thought process is selfish and self rightous.

        March 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Because it is illegal for them to deny something based on faith.

        March 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        "Because it is illegal".....Yup! That too!

        March 7, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Report abuse |
  14. christina

    birth control can make it so that a women can never have children. it can start up many complications for the women. my opinion is that birth control is wrong its like putting drugs into yourself... and for what? so that you can sleep around

    March 2, 2012 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
    • ProgressiveMike

      God Almighty, what is WRONG with you? Are you REALLY that deluded? That's some of the most twisted, distorted, juvenile, convoluted thinking I've come across. "... so that you can sleep around"??? Really, THAT's what you think? PLEASE sign a new pledge (since your party LOVES locking politicians into unbreakable promises that undercut legitimate attempts at governance): I PLEDGE NOT TO VOTE IN ANY ELECTION, EVER AGAIN.

      March 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Allright Mike! Can you believe the narrow minded ignorant BS coming from some of these posters? The idea that BCPs are used by women so they can sleep around? Not being able to get pregnant does not mean that. What it can mean is enjoying being awake with your partner.....which the poster should indulge in. I am so tired of a few spoiled brat leeches who feel they can tell the world how we should live and ignoring the reality of the world around them. Never do they think outside of themselves....."Wah Wah Wah.....It's a sin and I shouldn't have to pay for it"! But you should still help us pay for what we want!!!" In the USA millions of unwanted, unloved, abused and murdered children, but all we hear about BCPs is "Wah Wah Wah....." from those who have no answers for the problems of these children!

        March 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • lilibelle

      Earth to Humanity, do you know how many times birth control is prescribed to us ladies for reasons other than "avoiding unwanted pregnancies" and "freedom to sleep around"??? They prescribe it for PCOS and other horrible issues we face. No one is forcing or GLAMORIZING using birthcontrol, just like no one is FORCING or GLAMORIZING Abortion.

      "Birth control pills are often prescribed for reasons other than avoiding pregnancy. Sometimes women need this medication for very serious medical conditions. This is where the Catholic church has absolutely no business determining what kind of medical care a woman should have. The decision to use birth control pills is, like any other medical decision, between a woman and her healthcare provider. It is none of the Church's business why birth control pills might be prescribed by a doctor."
      — JT Harkness, Last Word Blog

      March 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
  15. H

    I am fine with your feelings on this issue, though there is a sequitur that gets glossed over. How is it your feelings on this issue need to be imposed on everyone else? For instance, I think homeopathy is complete nonsense, and facts back me up on this one, but I don't begrudge other people for using it. There are people who refuse all medicine in the name of their religious faith. Should we have that position imposed on everyone as well?

    March 2, 2012 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      Women who "sleep around" will do so with or without contraception. How narrow minded can you be? You don't think BCPs are healthy? DON'T USE THEM!!!! I loved my hysterectomy when I was thirty y/o. My man and I could finally enjoy "staying awake" with each other....No sleep needed. No pain, no bleeding no pregnancy! FREEDOM! BCPs mean different things to different people. Who are YOU to judge others? You believe in God? Well....YOUR God, told you not to judge. Believe that!

      March 2, 2012 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
  16. rachael

    "Should I so easily accept the implication that I need to alter a part of myself that’s working properly in order to be free or fulfilled?" -
    As a health care provider you should be glad that your "woman parts" as in tip top shape. Not all women have that luxery. There are MANY disease states that affect the hormones and the menses cycle, making for some women the otherwise normal experience painful, disruptive and affecting other parts of their health. Some women need to be on hormonal contraception IN ORDER to get regulated and conceive. Some women have terrible periods affecting their hemoglobin – and without control would be scarily anemic.
    Now – as far as Barack being in on the "contraceptive companies conspiracy" you have to be slightly deluded to even think that. I can't think of one major pharma company that does not make a form of oral contraception – therefore you must be against all pharmaceutical companies. ALL women should have control of their contraceptive and health rights.

    March 1, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      rachael, the author acknowledges that "...when a woman uses “contraception” for medical reasons other than preventing a pregnancy it's not technically contraception, and the Catholic Church doesn't necessarily prohibit these uses." What's your point?

      March 1, 2012 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kristen

        The church doesn't "necessarily prohibit" definitly needs some clarification. Sounds pretty nebulous. How sick do you have to be for the church to "allow"?

        March 2, 2012 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Christian Taliban

      Thank you Rachel! You are 100% correct. I try to explain the points you made to my fellow men out there with limited success. Please keep up the fight! This is one Christian man who is in your corner!!!

      March 3, 2012 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
  17. denver2

    "But from there, the defense sounds like slick advertising for the contraceptive industry: To be a healthy woman, you need contraception. All the successful women use it. You can’t live without it."

    This is absurd. The author's complaint is with advertising, not birth control. And the origin of her complaint with the advertising industry lies in a patriarchal, misogynistic culture, the survival of which can be attributed directly to religion. In a weird way, she has made a great case that religion itself denigrates women. (Which it does.)

    March 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Lydia

    I wonder how many "oops" babies this woman has had from practicing NFP?

    March 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      The symptothermal method of NFP has been proven to be 99.6% effective. That meets or exceeds conventional forms of contraception.

      Published in 2007
      humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.full.pdf+html?sid=77d035bd-d4e1-4195-bcaf-ce1418a01098

      March 1, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
  19. samantha

    I think the Catholic church should offer their own insurance plan to Catholics and others who believe in the same spiritual practices. The church would offer only the meds and procedures acceptable by the Catholic church. This way, all people would have the choice of an insurance plan that was compliant to their belief, especially where pregnancy & contraception is concerned.

    March 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      samantha, we agree. Unfortunately, the HHS mandate does not allow that.

      March 1, 2012 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        It would be a private plan under a religious group.....it could be allowed.

        March 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        But many organizations sponsored by the Catholic Church, such as homeless shelters run by Catholic nuns that don't employ, much less serve, only Catholics, are not covered by the "compromise". Neither are hospitals or universities.

        March 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        if the Catholic Church did not take state of federal funding, they would not have to comply to the polices of the state/federal governments.....

        March 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      Not true in the cases of orders religious. They are employers, and therefore they must provide health insurance or pay a fine, and that insurance must cover contraceptives without a copay. Catholic insurance companies have been providing insurance, and Catholic organizations have been self-insuring, with coverage that fell within the moral beliefs of their faith for a long time, without receiving public funds, but this doesn't allow for that any more.

      March 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        I worked for two different catholic hospitals and both had national public insurance policies....

        March 1, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
  20. ph0enix

    "But from there, the defense sounds like slick advertising for the contraceptive industry: To be a healthy woman, you need contraception. All the successful women use it. You can’t live without it."

    This line is where her argument is no longre valid. No one, anywhere has said women NEED contraception. The Obama administration has never said, nor do I think it has ever implied that women NEED contraception. What they have said is that all women need ACCESS to contraception in order to be in full control of their own lives. No one is forcing anyone to use contraception.

    That's the fundamental difference in the two sides of this argument. Requiring contraception be made available to all women is not forcing them to use it. Not allowing contraception to be available to your employees (unless it is at their own cost) is attempting to force them to not use it, or essentially punishing them with lower paychecks should they choose to.

    March 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      But if they are going to use it, forcing the Church to pay for it is the issue from their perspective. The author is just pushing the point that the needs of women's health can be met without contraceptives, and in a way the is more respectful to a woman's body and her place in society than contraceptives.

      March 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        We are pushing back so that the author's views are not mistaken for fact.

        March 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Patrick, Exactly! A narrow point of view should not speak for the rest of us. The JW who posted about having to pay for others to receive blood is a good point. They have been paying for other people to receive blood for years when it is a sin for them to receive blood. Insurance is a national coverage for all people and we all pay for things we do not believe morally we should have to pay for. No one group, religious or otherwise should be exempt from the polices because they disagree. The majority of people in the USA believe that contraceptive coverage should be available .....even in Catholic society. I don't feel sorry for the whiners.....without our help they couldn't pay for their babies healthy or challenged. I'll also repeat a quote from Eleanor Roosevelt. "No one can make your feel inferior without your consent". If anyone believes the use of contraception is denegrating to women, then their feelings of denigration are what they want to feel. If it is a problem, it is their problem and theirs alone!

        March 1, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lydia

        But there needs can't be met. It is ridiculous to suggest that that the NFP method is as effective as birth control. And, if he catholic church allows it for other things (for example, I took it for years for cramps, not to control birth) then that is just a stupid distinction w/o a difference. Why not have everyone who needs access to it just say they need it for cramps when in actuality they want it for birth control? The reality is it is none of the Church's business what I do between me and my doctor. She lost the argument when she said the Obama administration said that all woman "need birth control." The administration never said that. They said they "need ACCESS to birth control." We have separation of church and state in this country and the church has to follow the same laws as other employers, period.

        March 1, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        One of the Catholic hospitals I worked for did a lot of D & Cs. I know for sure that sometimes a D & C meant abortion.....A friend of mine had THAT kind of D & C.

        March 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        The symptothermal method of NFP has been proven to be 99.6% effective. That meets or exceeds conventional forms of contraception.

        Published in 2007
        humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.full.pdf+html?sid=77d035bd-d4e1-4195-bcaf-ce1418a01098

        March 1, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
  21. John N Florida

    I wonder how her Priest, Mother Flanagan, feels about this?

    March 1, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Michael Sawyer

    You cannot agree with the president 100% on “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health.” and then turn around and wish to take that control away from women. I am all for all sides sharing their perspectives and giving their opinions to women that wish to hear them, but NOT for you taking control away from a woman in terms of what she wants for her body.

    Either be 100% for the presidents statement or side with the Catholics against women, but stop trying to take a stand for both.

    March 1, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      Mike, she never stated that she wanted to take everyone's contraceptives away and make them illegal. While she does express that she wants her gifts, and the rights of other Catholics, to continue to be respected by the law, that's not what her article is about. She's arguing for a much more natural (and less expensive for everyone worried about the low-income folks) method for a woman to manage her fertility and her health than the chemical methods being mandated by HHS.

      March 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        WELLLL, the thrice married, drug addicted, "blue movie" lover, CHILDLESS Rush Limbaugh agrees with you. It must be all that "Natural" stuff that has kept him childless....right?

        March 4, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Report abuse |
  23. MarcB

    Oh for heavens' sake:
    "The Obama administration’s primary talking point on this issue is that “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health.”

    What part of "Every woman should be in control" does the author not understand ?
    Contraceptives is control.
    Abstinence is control.
    NFP is control.

    ALL are CHOICES.

    And the author wishes to REMOVE choices from women.

    Talk about setting women back 70 years.

    March 1, 2012 at 11:36 am | Report abuse |
    • gradchica

      How is she taking away anyone's choice? Women who want bc can buy it or access it–just on their own dime, not on the Church's. Stop taking away a religious group's right to live out their convictions–you're imposing your "choice" on us if you demand that we pay for your birth control.

      March 1, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        And your religion is trying to impose its rules on the rest of us. Catholic programs got $1.5 billion in the last 2 years from taxpayers...including your employees. Why is it okay for our tax dollars to go for your religious programs but you want to deny medical coverage to people of different beliefs?

        March 2, 2012 at 2:07 am | Report abuse |
  24. truefax

    This girl likes it in the ass that's why she doesn't care about bc.

    March 1, 2012 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Tonya

      You are one sick puppy. "This girl" is a beautful wife and mother who happens to believe that society might just benefit from not "getting what they want, when they wanted it". I used to work in a psychiatric hospital with children. It was filled with what we then called "king baby" kids. It meant "I want what I want when I want it". and in all honesty, we are now raising a complete society of king babies. Scary that we don't even see what we are doing to ourselves (as women) and our children and relationships. I bet you we regret it someday soon.

      March 5, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        The poster was simply trolling. It is best to avoid trolls and responding to them, as they are not looking for discussion but to simply push your buttons so that you cannot help but seek instant gratification via instantly responding.
        Don't give in to that desire. Be patient and look for the meaningful conversations.

        March 5, 2012 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
  25. CMoses

    I read and hear so many women raising the point of non-contraceptive uses of basic birth control pills. My wife has been prescribed them for that purpose for many years. By why should any of the "morning after" pills be covered? They are not for non-contraceptive uses. Please admit that there are drugs that are used solely as contraceptives/abortifacients and don't have other reasons to be prescribed.

    Many argue that marijuana should be prescribed for medical purposes, but still not allowed as a recreational drug. No one argues that crack cocaine should therefore be legal in some cases, too.

    March 1, 2012 at 9:34 am | Report abuse |
  26. dave

    the simple difference is the President is not telling individual women what to do or how to run their lives. The author does want to tell all women how to run their lives and use the law to strong arm them

    March 1, 2012 at 8:54 am | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      Actually the president is telling women, like the author, that she has to pay for drugs and services that she finds morally objectionable. Not all women agree with your point of view.

      March 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        and yet, I find it morally reprehensible that a part of my insurance premiums and my taxes help pay for the prenatal care and birth and sometimes the lifetime care of children from people who make the choice to get pregnant knowing that there is a high risk for fetal anomalies. Yet, like every insurance payer and tax payer......I have no say in how my money is spent.

        March 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Chris B

        I find it odd that people are complaining about this now. Jehovah's Witnesses have been paying for other people's blood transfusions for years, despite believing it to be a sin that prohibits one from accessing heaven. The fact is that you do not get to control what medical care other people receive from their insurance plan. They do. If you don't like that, you can self-insure. Furthermore, it is not a sin in Catholicism to pay for medical treatment that pays for someone else to use contraception. It is only a sin to use contraception, and no one is forcing anyone to take contraception.

        Finally, your post about the morning after pill is very ill informed. It is the same hormonal composition as regular birth control medicine, just in a higher dose. It is not an abortifacient, it is a contraceptive. It prohibits conception from occuring–it does not abort a fertilized egg or implanted fetus. Finally, your comments ignore the fact that CONTRACEPTION IS LEGAL, and has been for nearly 50 years. Period. If you don't like other people exercising their legal right to privacy in making their own medical decisions, you're more than welcome to leave the United States and move to Iran, where that type of thinking is more mainstream.

        March 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        I hadn't thought of the Spiritual Beliefs of the JWLS. It is as strong an argument....or stronger an argument than those who do not want to pay for contraception.....and you are making your point(s) on spiritual beliefs. Unfortunately, those who are anti contraception will not accept your point as being as important as theirs. Life should be as "they" believe and the rest of us are wrong......

        March 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        Chris, no one is talking about making contraceptives illegal here. The author is arguing against them, as am I, because they are less effective than NFP and they do more harm to the overall status of women than good.

        To answer your other point, yes they are higher doses, but the chemistry in monthly birth control pills has changed through the years. The high-estrogen pills that work primarily through preventing ovulation are no longer available in the US and Canada. New pills have reduced the estrogen and added progestin instead to reduce side-effects. The pill's overall effectiveness has not been reduced, but how they work is much different. The lower estrogen pills are not as effective at preventing ovulation, do not thicken cervical mucus as much to slow the flow of sperm, and rely on the third effect, the thinning of the wall of the uterus, to prevent implantation.

        My point was that common daily birth control pills are often prescribed to manage an otherwise erratic and painful cycle in women, but morning after pills cannot be used for the same purpose, and thus should be addressed separately those that defend all contraceptives simply because one method is prescribed for non-contraceptive uses.

        March 1, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        Chris, self-insuring, and not insuring are no longer options under the new healthcare mandates, and that is a big part of the problem. Before there were always options and exceptions to deal with religious conscience issues, but those are being taken away.

        March 1, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Employers. The President is telling employers. Women can still do whatever they want re: their bodies. If they do not want to be part of a collective health plan that includes things that are morally objectionable, she should look for other options. Try Mexico.

        March 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • gradchica

      Actually, she doesn't want the law to strong-arm the Church into paying for something it considers gravely immoral. The president wants to use the coercive power of the state to violate the free exercise of religion on the part of the Catholic Church–and other, non-Catholic groups, like the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod–who object to this mandate. The author is being "tolerant"–if people want their bc, fine, just don't force us to pay for it.

      March 1, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Fine, as long as we who cannot have or do not want to have babies don't have to help others by using our monies. Fine if the J Witnesses no longer have to pay anything out of their insurance for the blood given to others.....it is a sin for JWs to receive blood! Oh! Hold the fort! It is only wrong if it is the expense you do not agree with ca7use of your religious path. Well...BOO HOO HOO to you. We all pay for things we feel are morally wrong, including higher school taxes when we do not have children, welfare expenses for those who cannot afford the children they do have. Get over yoiur selfrightous BS and live in the real world the rest of us live in. Without our input into insurance, those that want to have children would not be able to afford their insurance premiums and you know it! You couldn'y afford to pay for blood transfusions if you had to pay for it on your own, yet the JWs have been paying into insurance where part of the expense goes towards blood transfusions. It is a sin for JWs to receive blood. I suggest that you put your effort into caring for those already born, like the almost 500,000 children in fostercare and the millions of children in the welfare system. Millions more youngsters walking the streets. A lot of children in the USA were birthed, but so many not loved or taken care of!!! Every day we hear of child abuse/murder. Do more work to stop that. It is time we first took care of the children who are living instead of ignoring them and having more children. The selfrightous crap we have been listening to from some in these posts is sickening. Many have the talk down real good.....but you cannot walk the talk cause then you'd have to take off your blinders.

        March 2, 2012 at 12:41 am | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Fine. Just don't force taxpayers to pay for $1.5 billion to go to Catholic programs over a couple of years. It's against my morals to support a church I don't believe in. That money could be spent on providing birth control to women who want it, and lots more besides.

        March 2, 2012 at 4:42 am | Report abuse |
  27. samantha

    Moses, I am not advocationg abortion for anyone. Abortion should always be a personal decision made by a woman and her doctor. What I am saying is that women who know they are high risk for having a baby with anomalies should not get pregnant. I say this because to bring a baby into this world knowing life will not be just hard, but painful, is = to child abuse. Add to this the discussion we've had on expense. There are many who object to helping to pay some of their insurance premiums for BCPs and other birthcontrol....mostly BCPs. There are many like myself who cannot have children and many who do not want to have children. Amuch larger share of our premiums goes to those having babies......healthy babies. When a baby is born with anomalies, when a baby is born early, the costs go up. basically, I was telling people that we are the ones paying for their babies, so quit whining about the small costs of BCPs. I was also saying that women who carry too much weight during their pregnancy put their fetus at risk....and themselves. People can control their weight....so control it! If women who try to tell the rest of us, the dangers of BCPs & are not willing to control their own weight, knowing it puts the fetus at risk, be quiet, You are hypocritical! We've had a multifaceted discussion, but never did I suggest a women should abort. There are parents who are very capable of loving and caring for a down syndrome baby/child/adult. With most there are some problems including heart disease, physical challenges/weaknesses, large tongue and swallowing problems, mental limitations. There is also abuse problems from those who resent their child, or those who feed on bullying the less able. Rape is also a problem. America and Americans do not value their children (generally speaking). We have almost 500,000 in fostercare, many more on welfare and way too many lost between the cracks. It costs us morally and financially. Until we can care for our own, abortion and birthcontrol has to remain a choice.

    February 29, 2012 at 7:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      samantha, again, I would argue that denying them life is far worse than a "defective" life. My daughter has Down syndrome, and I don't see that I EVER had a moment where it would have been morally permissible to abort her because she has an extra chromosome. Not to go extreme on this, but it is a historical fact that your line of thinking is EXACTLY why Hitler had so many mentally and physically handicapped people killed.

      "Defective" does not diminish their dignity. It is no excuse for abortion.

      March 1, 2012 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        Many contraceptives these days are less effective as contraceptives, but work as abortifacients as a third line of defense. If they can't prevent ovulation successfully, and they can't inhibit sperm from reaching the egg effectively, they modify the uterin wall to prevent effective implantation, thus starving to death a genetically unique human being in the beginning stages of his/her development.

        March 1, 2012 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        AGAIN.....I am NOT advocating abortion for anyone. Whether to abort or not is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.

        March 1, 2012 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        If you believe BCPs are a form of abortion (I do NOT believe so) you have a right to your beliefs. I still advocate NOT getting pregnant knowing you are high risk for producing a fetus with anomalies. This is MY belief. It is to me the same as child abuse.

        March 1, 2012 at 11:00 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Moses, If you believe my thought process is like Hitler's, then all I can say is that you have the religious brainwashing propaganda down pat. There are aprox 500,000 children in our fostercarwe system because those who should be caring for them are not able or not willing to do so. Of those 500,000 unique individuals there are aprox 150,000 living in group homes because they are not able emotionally, mentally physically able to live in a family environment.....AND because there are not enough foster homes to care for some of them. There are millions of unique children in our welfare system and still millions of unique children walking our streets who have fallen through the cracks. There has to be some religious propaganda about the lack of care of these children being a sin....being immoral. Why not harp on the living instead of those unique individuals not born. It would serve these children and your words much better. America/Americans are not taking proper care of children already born.....Harp on that!

        March 1, 2012 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        And yet the many attempts, including Massachusetts mandates regarding gay adoption and the current contraceptive mandates from HHS, would force Catholic agencies that minister to those needs to close up shop or violate their consciences. Why are there so many efforts to shift the role of solving these problems from non-profit charities to the taxpayer funded government that is more bureaucratic and more costly?

        March 1, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Because the non-profit charities sometimes have value systems that prevent them from providing the health care the government can.

        March 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Chris B

        The Church is more than welcome to stay in the adoption business provided it follows the law. It has chosen not to. The state law does not enable one to discriminate against a married couple because of their genders. Westboro Baptist Church does not get special exemptions when it violates laws, and the Catholic Church does not get those either. The law is non-discriminatory. Simply because the bishops have chosen to discriminate against gays does not make it legal under religious freedom laws. If the bishops were really paying close attention to that part of the bible, they'd be out stoning adulteresses and people who eat pork. They aren't because those are illegal too.

        March 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  28. Season

    "(When a woman uses “contraception” for medical reasons other than preventing a pregnancy it's not technically contraception, and the Catholic Church doesn't necessarily prohibit these uses.)"

    So, just so I understand this here, it is ok as a side effect, but not deliberately??

    I have solved the issue! Let's market contraceptives differently. If it is need for [insert medical condition] and has a side effect of temporary infertility, its is not a problem with the Church, am I right?

    February 29, 2012 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
    • gradchica

      Birth control may be licitly used if indicated for a medical reason–and, presumably, when other remedies have been tried and have failed. The problem with bc is that for many dr's, if a woman complains of cramps, heavy periods, etc, they throw her on the pill with few if any tests or other attempts at treatment because the pill is easy for the dr–it effectively takes away the women's natural cycle and replaces it with a pill-induced "cycle", thereby erasing the symptoms without addressing their underlying cause. Take, for example, PCOS. Does the pill get rid of the cysts? No. It just masks the symptoms. The pill is often bad medicine, covering up the symptoms and leaving the underlying pathology untouched.

      Also, if someone is truly wrestling with whether their use of bc is acceptable as a Catholic, that's between them and God. He'll know if you're saying "oh, um...I have some cramps sometimes...that's why I use the pill" or if you're truly using it as a last resort to solve your medical problem while honestly wishing there were another way. Marketing won't change that.

      March 1, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Report abuse |
  29. GP

    Before anyone else brings up the"Creighton" system, or NaPrO, I just want to point out that those are just normal ,age-old procedures to evaluate a woman who has heavy periods, severe pain with periods , or infertility. EVERY gynecologist is America( and most of the world) is trained to do these tests BEFORE any IVF. Do some skip the work-up and just try things? Probably. Looking at NaPRO site it seems it is a sort of packaged Catholic medical-marketing ploy to again limit OPTIONS a woman may have.

    February 29, 2012 at 6:03 am | Report abuse |
  30. Gilbert Moore

    Maybe we should force contraception on certain people. Like this author. Should we really allow someone like this to reproduce and further spread their political and hysterical rantings to another generation? OF COURSE I'M KIDDING. Right?

    February 28, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
  31. Silentsword

    "(When a woman uses “contraception” for medical reasons other than preventing a pregnancy it's not technically contraception, and the Catholic Church doesn't necessarily prohibit these uses.)"

    Unfortunately, insurance companies don't make that distinction. Nor do too many people who oppose contraception on "think of the babies!" or "God says so!" grounds.

    February 27, 2012 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
  32. Bluidshay

    Who the hell is forcing contraceptives on anyone? Are we forced to get well visits? GYN exams? Colonoscopies? Immunizations? No....but all those are part of the original Federal Health Care Mandate, which means that they are covered in full by health insurance because they are services that the government feels (and I believe rightly so) are important enough to provide access to all Americans...but the choice to have the service done is still up to us. So I don't buy 'To be a healthy woman, you need contraception.' And I have no problem repressing my fertility. My fertility served its purpose. I had two beautiful kids. Both kids were conceived the FIRST TIME trying. So yeah... I'd like to repress my fertility because if I didn't we'd be competing with the Duggars, which I think is an obscene power grab of resources, having that many kids. Besides, I'm 40 now and I don't want to be raising kids in the nursing home, thanks. How does the Church feel about Viagra? Oh, that's right. They approve of it. So hypocritical.

    February 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ray

      I aggre with you @ Bluidshay. MY health should be MY choice. As for Catholics or any other religion, Leave YOUR religous beliefs out of my health care. Don't bring it up to me. You can choose for you and your family alone, don't try and dictate your religious beliefs onto me. That is for the religious extremists to do, who care not about anyone but themselves.

      February 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lydia

        CMoses, you must be kidding me! So, if you block pregnancy, that is not natural? But, if a man can't get an erection....and needs drugs to INTERVENE, that is NATURAL? Gotta love the Catholic church? They will twist anything to make it "work"! Pun intended.

        March 1, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        Yes, Lydia, BLOCKING a pregnancy is unnatural. Where else do we practice human health by preventing a system of the body from operating according to its function? We wear glasses so that malfunctioning eyes can see correctly, we take insulin shots to make up for a malfunctioning gland that can't maintain blood sugar. A man suffering from ED has a system that is not operating according to its function, and Viagra works to make it function properly. Contraception takes an otherwise perfectly functioning system and prevents it from working, or in the case of an abortifacient, counter-acts the results of that system after already functioning according to its purpose.

        March 1, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Not always. The system is not always perfectly functioning.

        March 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        Patrick, in that case the contraceptive is a mute point.

        March 1, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Not necessarily. Contraception methods are often used to achieve medical conditions that do not directly relate to pregnancy. If a woman can have her symptoms mitigated by a contraceptive, that could be a viable option for her and it would have nothing to do with fertility.

        March 1, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marie

      "How does the Church feel about Viagra? Oh, that's right. They approve of it. So hypocritical."

      Last time I checked, Viagra wasn’t an artificial contraceptive or an abortifacient. So no, it’s not hypocritical.

      February 27, 2012 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
      • Rafeal

        Not hypocritical ... it's an artificial means for a guy to get going. If God wanted that man to have a child, he wouldn't need a pill. Seeing as the Pope has recently made a statement saying that Catholics should avoid infertility treatments. Which, one would say that the happy blue pill is ... you see, because a male shouldn't want an erection if he weren't intending on impregnating.

        February 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • KL

        Rafeal: Have you read the actual address from the pope or a paraphrase in the media? The pope has not told couples to abandon fertility treatment at all. He did however talk about how child creation needs to happen between the spouses and not in an engineered process. i.e. Erection medications help the couple to have the child the "natural" way without creating life in a laboratory and then discarding or aborting what isn't wanted. The ironic thing is, NaPRO technology, which is used to cure the woman of the ailment preventing a natural pregnancy from occurring, has a MUCH HIGHER success rate than IVF. Even more ironic, NaPRO technology is based upon information learned through Fertility Awareness Methods (NFP).

        February 27, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Educated

        "Erection medications help the couple to have the child the "natural" way"

        OH REALLY? I didn't know Viagra (Sildenafil citrate) was "all-natural"? Last I checked, Viagra was a man-made chemical that is in no possible way "natural" to anything God created. But, since it supports your viewpoint, feel free to twist "natural" into some contorted "religion based" definition.

        February 28, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        The human reproductive system is designed to do exactly that: reproduce. The distinction here is that Viagra and other ED medication helps the male reproductive system function the way it was intended. It facilitates the "natural way" babies are conceived: through intercourse, not a test tube. Contraceptive prevent the human reproductive system from functioning the way it was intended.

        February 29, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Intentions never carry any weight past the moment of instigation. I am sure we can make our own way without the intentions of others.

        February 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • sutt

        Opposition to birth control is usually from the "god's will" angle. If you believe in those fairy tales, can't a man get an erection without pills if it is truly "god's will"? Isn't it supposed to be up to "god" whether or not people can do everything that needs to be done for a baby to be born? Yes indeed, it is hypocrisy. You're just too blind to accept it.

        March 3, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • sutt

        CL- no. Men eventually losing their abilities to get an erection is the natural way. It's part of the process. If you believe in the fairy tales about only doing things as they are designed or the "natural way" then you must accept impotence as your fate. But people with such crazy beliefs as yours aren't know to be the most reasonable so carry on. . .

        March 3, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse |
  33. Rozelle

    In the words of Mitt Romney, "Contraception? What's wrong with it? Just leave it alone."

    February 25, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • lili

      To MItt Romney: Contraception? What's wrong with it? Absolutely nothing, so leave those of us who wish to use it alone!

      February 25, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        This author, like Mitt Romney, just isn't that consistent or bright. She actually writes, "Indeed, throughout history woman has been at a sore disadvantage in terms of having the freedom to thrive and contribute her many, varied gifts to society." !!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE AUTHOR WROTE THAT........IN THIS SILLY ARTICLE.

        Now I may be just a silly man, who doesn't have any business commenting on women's health and contraception issues, but ......WHAT DOES THIS AUTHOR THINK??? What gives women "THE FREEDOM TO THRIVE AND CONTRIBUTE" their many gifts to society. It's called birth control silly catholic girl.

        February 26, 2012 at 8:54 am | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Yes, Mark. Exactly. While I am not saying that every pregnant woman is incapable of freely contributing to society, my mother-in- law had 10 children over a 20 year period. She didn't have the freedom to do anything but take care of those children. And being a responsible woman, she chose to do the best job that she could. I would hate to see a woman who doesn't WANT children to find herself in that same position. Why do Catholics want all these unwanted children to be born?? Birth control should be available to every woman who chooses to use it. Catholics shouldn't have the right to take that choice away.

        February 26, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marie

        "What gives women "THE FREEDOM TO THRIVE AND CONTRIBUTE" their many gifts to society. It's called birth control silly catholic girl."

        So you actually believe that women are by their nature incapable of being a free and contributing member of society? And that it is only with the use of artificial contraceptives that they become so? Are you completely unaware of the blatant misogyny of that belief? Women have always been fully human, Mark – we don't need birth control to make us so.

        February 27, 2012 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
  34. nimesh

    These ideas are super dangerous. She might be right on some levels. Granted she is definitely right in her religious beliefs.
    But this is my problem with all Judea-Christian religions. They don't friggin' have any respect for the earth or for other species.
    The earth cannot support 12-15 billon humans, living like american's. Its gonna gut the planet. Where america leads everybody follows.
    If america say's contraception is bad, the world will believe it is bad. Contraception should be aggressively marketed in africa, the middle east and asia,so that the world's population stabilizes at 8-9 billion and doesn't skyrocket to 12 billion.
    Also contraception cuts the odd's of getting HIV by 95% and that's ignoring that aspect is where the author is being just ridiculous. There are 1.2 mn hiv sufferers in america. Its stage 2 of the epidemic.

    February 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      I couldn't agree with you more, nimesh. I don't understand why they don't get that the world is over populated and has diminishing resources. They should spend more of their time trying to help the poor and needy that are already here rather than promote unwanted children.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marie

        "I don't understand why they don't get that the world is over populated and has diminishing resources."

        Because it’s not. Malthus predicted mass starvation in England by the early 1900’s – it never happened because he was wrong. Ditto Ehrlich – his predictions were for the next decade, not the next century, so it only took ten years to prove him wrong.

        According to the UN Population database we will hit peak pop around 2040, with 8.02 billion and then world population will begin to decline. And FYI it’s that population decline (driven by the discredited theories of Malthus and his successors) we need to fear, as population is what drives prosperity. Depopulation will drag down the standard of living for all of us.

        February 27, 2012 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
      • Educated

        Marie – I hope you don't base all your theories on 18th century scholars, who based their "theories" on evidence prevalent before we have cures to almost any/all diseases, and during a time when people thought "germs" were evil spirits. Wake up and join the 21st century. We drive cars, use electricity, and almost everything Malthus claimed was total BS. Again, nice way to use logic from the 18th century to make a 21st century decision.

        February 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Educated

        "population is what drives prosperity. Depopulation will drag down the standard of living for all of us."

        REALLY? Have you even been to China or India, the most populated contries in the world? How's their standard of living? Your logic is so full of falasies.

        February 28, 2012 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marie

        Educated
        “REALLY? Have you even been to China or India, the most populated contries in the world? How's their standard of living? Your logic is so full of falasies.”

        Yes, really. Population drives prosperity and this has been true through out human history. As the population grows over time, the average person is better off, by any measure from per capita income to beer consumption (check out “The Standard of Living Through the Ages”, a paper by demographers Burnette and Mokyr)

        India with its population density of 954 people per square mile has a standard of living ($3,700 GDP PPP) over twelve times that of the Congo ($300 GDP PPP) one of the least populated countries in the world at 75 people per square mile. (Check out the CIA Factbook)

        China – well Commies are running that vapour economy and thanks to gendercide their surplus male population is a ticking time bomb.

        Malthus was provably wrong. Ehrlich was provably wrong. The UNFPA, which you use as a source, is provably wrong.

        March 14, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • FlyGuyInSJ

      @nimesh You're a flat-out liar and a bigot. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

      February 24, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        The problem Fly is your need to name call and NOT give any factual info against what nimish said. The truth is, China saw their problem with overpopulation and now has forced birthcontrol and abortion. None of us wants that! Nimish is correct in saying that people do not have respect for the Earth. In the USA it used to be industry (and sometimes still is) over clean water, clean land and clean air. The costs of trying to backtrack and clean up are horrendous and still quite often, regulated clean air, clean and water laws are lessened or dropped altogether. Perhaps religion should come into this. If you believe your God made land water and air, it would seem you would want to love & respect what your God made. There has to be away of people being able to make a living to support their family. If it comes to money or the clean land, air, water your God created, money wins. This is bigotry towards the love people profess for their God. Do I believe in forced birthcontrol for anyone? No! But, if people cannot support their lifestyle, regardless how rich or how humble, there maybe a future where we end up making laws ala China. Bigotry is also....I love Christ, I love my God.....and then calling someone else names cause you don't like what was said!

        February 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        Samantha, I respect a lot of what you said, but please, don't try to bring religion into our government! We're supposed to have religious freedom in this country, so I don't want any one religion calling the shots for what needs to be done regarding overpopulation or regulation of industries. We can deal with all of that without using someone's religion. I believe, as do you, that we all need to respect the earth more and treat it better. I strongly oppose religious intervention, though.

        February 24, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        I hate the idea of religion in government! I was speaking to the words "liar & bigot' used by flyguy toward another poster. I was also expanding a bit on a couple of points the other poster brought up.

        February 24, 2012 at 8:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Also, cactuslilli, the reason I mentioned "God" was that flyguy, by his choice of words for name calling appeared to me to have some kind of relious connection.....as do others.....so I put the "God" factor together with respect for the air, water and land THEY believe their God created.

        February 24, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Samantha, I didn't get your reply in my email until after I read it in the comments, so I posted my reply a little later there. Thanks for the clarification!

        February 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • AB

        frankly this woman is a right wing nut. she is wrong period. the pill is not just for contraception it has alot of other medical purposes. if she doesnt want to take it fine. but she shouldnt stop someone else from doing it if they want, and say their insurance company should not have to pay for it.

        what obama said and people please start listening. is that the church does not have to pay for it , the insurance companies do. the church wants to say no they are not paying for it either. so if you ask me the church is overreaching.

        the president has made a concession, but just like the republican party which the church is advocating and working for. they have refused to work with him. next thing you know cardinal dolan will be in the house of representatives.

        February 25, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • gmg

      The pill does not prevent HIV. the contraceptives included in the coverage are the pill. Not condoms. Your comment is misleading in the fact that you are ignoring the basic fact of the article and the mandate–that organizations which disagree with contraception must be forced to pay for prescribed contraceptives–the pill. Condoms can be purchased over the counter.

      February 25, 2012 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        And just where we all be if everyone who disagreed with insurance coverage based on their spiritual or religious beliefs decided it was immoral to pay for them? If someone believed a cancer patient had sinned by his vice of smoking didn't want to pay premiums for that coverage, should that person be allowed to withhold payment? Or what about alcoholics who end up with myriad health problems that are covered by health insurances, if I believe it is a sin to drink, should I have to pay for that person's coverage? Come on, quit trying to tell people what their coverage should be based on your religious beliefs. The Catholic religion in this country got $1.5 billion in the past couple of years from President Obama's administration for their various programs. I don't remember saying it was okay to give my tax dollars to a religious organization. So how dare you say President Obama is trampling on your religious beliefs! Hypocrites. We all pay for things we don't agree with. But I don't want any religions telling me what my personal health coverage should be, whether they pay for it or not. If my religion says it's okay to use birth control, you have no right to deny me my rights.

        February 25, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Intolerant? Yeah, right!

    MILF ALERT! The author is smoking hot!

    February 24, 2012 at 9:53 am | Report abuse |
    • AO

      Go for it...hope you enjoy checking for changes in cervical mucus.

      February 24, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  36. unowhoitsme

    People need the option of contraceptives. Let them chose whether or not they want a child. Too many unwanted children in this world being abused and neglected...only to die horrific deaths. Is the Catholic Church willing to take in all these unwanted children?

    February 24, 2012 at 7:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Amanda Wolf

      TO UNWHOITSME: EXACTLY. YOU HIT THE NAIL HEAD 🙂 I TOTALLY AGREE. I BET WHEN CONDOMS WERE INTRODUCED THE CHURCH RAISED A SIMILAR SCANDAL ABOUT A NECESSARY PRECAUTION. IF MORE YOUTHS USED CONDOMS, THE AIDS PEST WOULD NO LONGER EXIST. I AM FEMALE, STILL I DO NOT SEE TAKING A NECESSARY CONTRACEPTIVE PILL AS A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS. RATHER REPUBLICANS WHO PROPOSED LAST WEEK, SOURCE: ABC. THE CONGRESSAN, DAN, SAID EMPLOYEES WHO WANTED TO TAKE CONTRACEPTIVES
      WOULD REPORT THAT TO THEIR EMPLOYERS, WHO WOULD DECIDE FOR THEIR EMPLYOYEES, NOW , THAT IS WORK SLAVERY, NO WONDER A TEA PARTY POLITICIAN ENDORSED THAT CRAZY PROPOSAL.

      February 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
  37. Angie

    Good article, very well-reasoned. I wish that the commenters would genuinely try to understand it! The HHS decision basically breaks down to saying that women in order to be productive members of society have to change and remove something natural and positive: their fertility. Furthermore, even if you are convinced it's morally wrong, that you should be forced to pay for it.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      We understand it fine. We just don't agree with the characterization she makes. It sounds hysterical, is inflammatory and myopic. I presents a person's view derived from her indoctrination.

      We want to make sure people understand we disagree, and disagree loudly. The bigger the falsehood, the harder you have to work to keep it from doing damage.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      We commenters did understand it, Many of us don't agree with it. People can be "upstanding members of society" in several different ways. It is not a definition that is limited to having children or not having children, using BCPs or a more "natural" method of birthcontrol. Most of us don't care if there is "pull out" or stay in". If anyone actually believes we commenters believe this is how we define ourselves or believes that this is how society defines us, then they, not us commenters, have the problem. Those against BCPs have spent a lot of time trying to define the rest of us, most of the time far wide of the mark. If you don't want others to define you in some uncomfortable definition of what they believe, don't try to do it with us.....YOU become the loser. Define yourselves for yourselves and get on with your lives. Don't whine about the higher costs of insurance premiums because of BCPs. People like me who cannot have babies and people who don't want babies have been helping big time to pay for your babies. Don't talk to us about the negative side effects of BCPs if you are overweight or become overweight during your pregnancy. You are at risk for complications as is your fetus. Weight is a controlable problem. Control it! if you believe in a particular spiritual path....walk it. Talking it doesn't work with those of us listening to you. If your path works for you GREAT! But your path isn't my path. We commenters understand a lot. We also believe something Eleanor Roosevelt said "NO one can make you feel inferior without your consent". You feel denigrated by "unatural" birthcontrol? Your problem!

      February 24, 2012 at 12:19 am | Report abuse |
      • Tommy

        That is a wonderful quote Samantha!

        February 24, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Samantha, I got your comment about why you used "God" in your comment and I understand what you are trying to say. I actually agree with your comments. And you're right about no one responding to the comments made about the costs we all bear for others' health. I've made several comments about that, myself, and no one has come up with a viable argument. Because, by their reasoning, we should all be able to withhold from paying premiums for coverage of patients with whom we have a problem. Religious or otherwise.

        February 25, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Actually cactus, I think they emotionally believe WE all should help pay for their babies and emotionally believe they should not have to pay for contraception......but say nothing cause intellectually they have no ground to stand on. Sooooo, it p*sses them off and they say nothing.

        February 25, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        I agree with you on that, too. Well, I guess emotionally they believe they should be able to have it both ways, but they're completely stymied that, as you say, intellectually, we don't buy it and don't go along with it.

        February 25, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marie

        I've made several comments about that, myself, and no one has come up with a viable argument. Because, by their reasoning, we should all be able to withhold from paying premiums for coverage of patients with whom we have a problem. Religious or otherwise.

        Really, you don’t consider the First Amendment right to freely practice one’s religion without interference from the state a “viable” argument against Obama's artificial contraceptive and abortifacient mandate? Why not?

        February 27, 2012 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Marie, Obama is not interfering with your right to not use birth control. He is simply mandating that insurance companies that pay for many "sinful" conditions, such as lung cancer caused by the vice of smoking, alcoholism caused by the vice of drinking, etc., pay for women's choice to use birth control. You don't have the right to impose your religious views on others. You Catholics have been insisting that Obama has been trampling on your religious rights, yet his administration has contributed $1.5 billion to Catholic programs the past couple of years. That's tax money that I didn't say was okay to spend in that way. I don't want to fund the Catholic faith. But as taxpayers and employers, we don't have the right to pick and choose what we want to cover. We agree, as citizens, to fund things for the common welfare of our country. Catholics like you are hypocritical. If you don't like Obama's policies, then don't accept the money he channels into your church's organizations. Say, "No, thank you, Mr. President." So that if you don't want to provide certain medical coverage to women, maybe he can put that $1.5 billion into that cause, instead.

        February 27, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Marie, Practice YOUR religion anyway you want. YOU do NOT have to use birthcontrol....it is YOUR choice. Keep your religious practices out of government! Also when you pay the extra insurance that will be needed because those of us who can't have children or do not want to have children do not have to help pay for your babies, then maybe you'll stop arguing a sensless argument. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM KEEPING TO THE PRACTICES OF YOUR RELIGION!

        February 27, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      it does NOT say a woman has to get rid of her fertility! You make it sound as if hysterectomies are being forced on women! The argument is just that women should have a choice over whether or not to use contraception. You guys are hysterical! Get a grip.

      February 24, 2012 at 12:33 am | Report abuse |
      • Meredith

        Women DO have a choice over whether or not they use contraception– that's the point. No one is saying, "Thou shalt take the Pill". They're saying, "Thou shalt have the option". The author's argument is built on that faulty premise and completely loses credibility when she resorts to utter hyperbole, suggesting the option to get contraception is akin to suffering from bulimia. If you can't win the argument without misrepresenting the facts, you're only hurting the cause you're attempting to defend.

        And this part was just hilarious...

        "When a woman uses “contraception” for medical reasons other than preventing a pregnancy it's not technically contraception, and the Catholic Church doesn't necessarily prohibit these uses."

        Does it matter that you might get a spiritual pass on the technicality when the Catholic-affiliated health service or insurance you have doesn't cover contraception at all? That is the matter the administration seeks to address... freedom of choice. Hallelujah!

        February 25, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Meredith, When I referred to the "argument", I wasn't talking about the author's position. I was referring to someone who commented rather hysterically that women were, in effect, being told they had to use contraception. I agree with you 100%. I, too, find the loopholes rather comical. That's like saying to an alcoholic, "Well, you can't drink to get drunk, but you can drink to quiet your cough."

        February 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Meredith

        Thanks, lili– I definitely misinterpreted your paragraph on first read but am glad to find so many well-reasoned comments on this article, yours included. I only wish I'd seen this thread a few days ago!

        February 25, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Amanda Wolf

      Angie: Rather,I realize YOU think you understand what your level of people do because the elite class level you and them live at. HOwever, middle working and working class Americans and poor ones live on a harder and lower economic level; for them, young women often get pregnant without deciding it; by being raped or abusive drunk husbands. If you were very poor and already had 6 kids , plus a part time or night time job, would you want more children? If you and your mate can hardly feed 6 mouths (yours and your husband's included plus your children's 6 ones)) how would you choose?

      I think ladies like you and the one you praise, live in luxury or enough income to feed 8 people, own 4 cars, a swimming pool,,etc. Of course you are conservative AND ASSUME AND JUDGE BY YOUR REALITY, NOT BY DIFFERENT AND TOUGHER REALITIES OF LESS WEALTHY AMERICAN WOMEN..WHERE IS YOUR CHRISTIAN LAW: DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS UNTIL YOU HAVE WALKED IN THEIR SHOOES FOR A THOUSAND MILES?

      February 26, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
  38. samantha

    I don't think we are going to get many posts anymore, especially from those arguing against the use of BCPs and other birthcontrol devices. Part of the reason is that this article has been posted for a few days. I also think when questioned about the part of financing that some of us talked about.....mainly our insurance paying for prenatal care & childbirth when we cannot or do not want to have children of our own, no one had a viable answer. There were no responses regarding overweight "moms to be" who are at risk themselves as are their fetuses. Not one response about being overweight for those who believe that BCPs are a sin. This is sad, because if women were as vocal about the dangers/health risks of overweight "moms to be" as they were about the use of BCPs, they might have received more respect.......Just a thought!

    February 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Wendy

    If one doesn't believe in contraception or abortion then it is their business to live by that. There is NO LAW forcing one to practice contraception or imposing required abortion. NONE. To suggest that a law that honors and supports an individuals family planning liberty is imposing on religious freedom is absolutely crazy. Again, ensuring that everyone have the opportunity to afford all family planning and reproductive health services isn't imposing anything on those who do not believe in family planning for themselves. Be chaste if you please but you don't have the right to impose your choice on an employee or anyone else. Religion's insistance on making contraception an issue is a loosing witness for Christ...but then his message was never good enough to sustain Christianity.

    February 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      Boy, Wendy, are you going to get flack for that last remark. But I agree with you.

      February 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Amanda Wolf

      wENDY: it is an irresponsibility to augment world overpoopulation, especially at crisis times humanity is going through, like now. Human lives become expendable when there is an over-supply of babies. The church is cheapening the value of every individudal human. As of women: we are not cattle nor baby-producing machines.

      February 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Nicole

    I am a Catholic, but I completely don't understand this woman's point. No one is telling her she needs to take birth control pills, from my understanding, the legislation is just telling Catholic schools/universities, etc., that they need to make it part of the health plan they offer employees. They are not forcing their employees to take it. And, for anyone who says a Catholic organization shouldnt be forced to offer contraceptives to employees because of religious beliefs, then I say, you have no right to deny an employee their right to birth control based on your religious beliefs, your employee may not be catholic, and you can't discriminate against an employee based on them being a different religion as you!!
    This whole thing is preposterous. I am Catholic, but I don't think religion should play a part in politics. I am prochoice, fine with gay marriage, and an advocate of birth control. Call me a bad catholic if you want, but I still believe in Jesus, I believe in communion as his body and blood and I believe in the holy trinity, the Virgin Mary and the saints. I don't believe, however, that I have any right to shove my religious beliefs down another's throat and make them conform their lifestyle to fit my beliefs.

    February 23, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Darknuss

      Your comment is too long. I did not read it. You are delusional and/or narcissistic to think that anyone cares about your longwinded opinion.

      February 23, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        To Darknuss, who criticized Nicole's comment for being too long...I found her comments very interesting. Do you think all people who write longer comments are narcissistic and long winded? Wow, what a snap judgement!

        February 23, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Yeah, I was going to chime in there also. I think s/he needs comic book versions of all comments in order to avoid an emotional fit when reading them.

        February 23, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      Great comments, Nicole! I especially like the part where you say Catholics cannot deny access to birth control to people of other faiths. Thank you.

      February 23, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • willowspring

        Catholics are not the only ones against this breach against our freedom of religion/conscience. Contraception is widely available. Go to a doctor and pharmacy or health dept that does not have any conscience to and pay for them your self. I don't ask anyone to pay for my needs and wants. A little personal responsibility is in order for these women who think they should be financed by the taxpayer. I guarantee, it will NOT be free!! And I don't want any part of it.

        March 4, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Not the tax payer, the insurance payer. We insurance payers, help you to be able to afford insurance to pay for your pregnancies. The J Witness has to accept some of their insurance premiums to help pay for other people to receive blood when it is a mortal sin for them to receive other people's blood. We tax payers help to pay for the schooling of children when we have none, for school breakfasts & lunches cause many families can't afford to feed the children they do have. We pay school taxes even though we home teach......

        March 4, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        willow, isn't it nice that you can afford to pay for your needs without the help of insurance or taxpayers. We all pay into inusrance so people cwho want babies can afford them and we pay for the prenatal care of women who know they are highrisk and their fetus' are highrisk. We pay for women who are overweight and weight is something that can be controlled. These women simply because they are overweight are at highrisk themselves and purposely put their fetus' in high risk. Maybe these women need to learn to control themselves. All of us who are childless have to pay taxes for schools. I guess cause you are paying your own way, your kids are in private schools. Not all people are that financially fortunate. We all have to pay for school breakfasts/lunches for those who cannot afford to feed the children they do have. How fortunate you are financially able to feed your own. Other families are much less fortunate. How fortunate that if you had an accident or for other reasons needed a blood transfusion, you are financially able to pay for that blood. Cause without insurance few are able to do so. If you & your family are using insurance for any health needs, you are not paying for your own needs by yourself. We insurance payers are helping you out, no matter what those needs are. We don't get to pick and choose what we want for your care.....quit trying to get special dispensation cause you have a religious belief. Others with religous convictions don't get the same consideration and you beneifit from them and the rest of us!

        March 4, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • willowspring

      Nicole, The entire issue is availability of contraception without having to pay for it, which means people of conscience, Catholics and non-Catholics alike are expected to pay for another person's birth control. What another women does with her body is her business and HER responsibility! Should people of conscience have to "finance" another person's desire to buy lattes or frappes every morning because that is what the "want?" Contraceptives are available from any doctor that does not have the constraints of Conscience due to their religion or personal moral code. If a person wants to control their fertility with a pill, go to a doctor and pharmacy that writes prescriptions for them and dispenses them without concern for their faith life. People have a choice!! Just don't expect people to do something against the will of their faith. That is a want not a need. As seen in several other of the comments there are many natural ways to handle fertility without demanding financial input from others and with modern science and reproductive health as advanced as it is, there is no excuse. Think of something completely abhorrent to you and then think about how you would feel if the government MADE you do it anyway. That is what this country is coming to. And it won't end here. It may be a freedom that you consider inviolate next time. Do you want to be FORCED against your will? I really don't care what your reasons are for using contraception or anyone else. I just do not want ANY part in the practice, physically, financially or against my faith.

      March 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Report abuse |
  41. beckieg

    I am not Catholic. I took birth control pills for 9 years and then faced 5 years of infertility before finally getting pregnant after a lot of self education on the natural fertility cycle. Finally learning how my own body REALLY works (beyond the basics they teach in 4th grade) was eye opening to say the least. I could hardly believe that as a college educated woman, I had chosen to needlessly manipulate my body's natural function for 9 years instead of just learning when to exert a bit of self control. Why? Because when I visited my doctor at age 23 he told me that's what young women do, they go on the pill. I was so ignorant it is appalling to me now that it was just assumed that the way my body functions needed pharmaceutical correction. Why? So my husband wouldn't have to do without a few days every month? How is this anything but denigrating? Its not so much an issue that it exists for those who decide they need to take it that is the problem, its that its considered by medical professionals and society in general to be the normal, no need to question it, perfect option for EVERY woman.

    February 23, 2012 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      There is a difference between "normal" and "acceptable". Being overweight isn't normal, but it all too often is acceptable. By the way, being overweight and especially excessively overweight all too often affects hormones and can cause infertility. No one is saying much about this, especially those who are anti BCPs. Gaining excess weight during pregnancy is not normal, nor is it healthy for the "mom to be" or the fetus, but more often than not, a woman will accept it as "normal
      . Few people speak against it except for the doctor. The fetus is at risk!!! . BCPs are not normal, they are acceptable by many. Although some women might have problems getting pregnant when they stop BCPs, the majority do not. Why not worry more about the health of "moms to be" & their fetus' and and let others take care of their own family planning? All women who want to have children or are trying to have children, or are pregnant should clean up their own lives before they sit in judgement on the lives of others. But the majority will not do this if their weight is an issue. For some it is a sin to use BCPs, but not a sin to be pregnant and overweight.....even though the life of the fetus is at risk.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      I think, as we have seen here, that the percentage of the population who thinks of it as "to be the normal, no need to question it, perfect option for EVERY woman," to be relatively small and avoidable. Most of us are intelligent and can question things on our own. It is unfortunate that some fall into this ideology, or fall victim to it.
      I would not be surprised if some of that ideology was perpetuated by male doctors who did not bother to question anything about a female medication.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Anne-Marie

      Don't blame BCP's for your trouble conceiving, unless you know for a fact that is what caused it. My sister in law has had no trouble and used birth control for years. My mom used birth control to, she did have trouble conceiving but it wasn't because of birth control, is was because of a physical issue, how do you know that wasn't you problem. Also there are some women who don't use birth control and have a hard time conceiving, for whatever reason, so until you know for a fact is was your birth control don't go blaming it for something that could have been wrong with your own body's chemistry.

      I am very happy you were able to have a child and best of luck to you as a mom.

      February 24, 2012 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
      • KL

        Many women have trouble conceiving after coming off the pill because they didn't realize they had an issue, it was masked by the pill. Sometimes, it may be because of the pill (i.e, lining too thin to implant the embryo), but many times it's because it masked over the true problem. Often, women try for a while, un-succesful, then turn to a RE who then many times has the woman learn the signs of fertility, just like NFP users do, so they can try and find the issue. After learning to know when they are fertile, they are then basically told that it doesn't work in reverse. i.e. NFP.

        As for the comments about "doing research" and not "questioning" etc, I would like to say that I do not use OCPs. I never have, never will. I have though been called a liar by a doctor in an emergency clinic, I have been laughed at by GYNs, and sneered at by people I would have called friends. The "pill" is not some end all be all of womanhood, though it very much is considered the right of passage into it.

        February 27, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Abby

      So let me get this straight. YOU didn't do any research. YOU didn't ask your doctor questions, and YOU just did what you were told without question, and it's not YOUR fault you had problems?

      You are an idiot. It's no ones fault but yours.

      February 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Juliabas

        Wow! You're being a real jerk.

        February 24, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • willowspring

      THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

      March 4, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Report abuse |
  42. Mango

    This lady is a moron. If a bunch of women who she will never meet decides to take the pill for whatever reason they may have really degrades her, she needs to get a life and some counselling. If I choose that I want to take the pill, that is my choice and no one elses' I do find it interesting that no one complains about men taking viagra to get an erection, treating people with lung cancer when they smoked for 30 years and so on.

    Catholics need to stay out of my life.

    February 23, 2012 at 5:35 am | Report abuse |
    • willowspring

      Men taking Viagra are Paying for it, not getting it free at the expense of the taxpayer and the assault on the conscience of people of faith. Don't you people get it? IT IS AGAINST OUR FAITH!!!!! What happens when the government Decrees that you are Required to do something that is against your principles with the threat of fines and/or jail time? This is about our freedoms, to many of which have already been usurped by a rogue government.

      March 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        WRONG! Check with your insurance company and the Catholic church. The insurance pays for it and the Catholic church approves of it!

        March 4, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
  43. cactuslili

    IN response to Patrick, who responded to my response to a much earlier blog by Samantha, who cautioned against the true nature of religion, you're right! I've been reading too many of these blogs for a long period now and I missed her point and said the wrong thing.Sorry! I meant that comment for those who think their personal religion designates them as controllers of other people's lives.

    February 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • willowspring

      I don't know what all you read and I don't know what all you responded, but those who are against this mandate are not trying to control other people's lives, they are saying they should not be responsible for other's choices to use contraception. It is against the faith of many religions and non-religious. Availability is not in question, personal responsibility is. Pay for it yourself!! It is NOT a right. It is a "want."

      March 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Viagra is not a right it is a WANT!

        March 4, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Thank you, Samantha, for pointing that out! Right on.

        March 4, 2012 at 8:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        Again, willowspring, it is against my personal morals to support people who keep having babies whose health insurance, paid for by my premiums, covers all their needs during their dependent years. Why is it only you and your religious friends who get to decide what they don't want to cover? I think it is a sin to smoke yourself into lung cancer, but my insurance payments cover those patients' treatments. Same with alcohol. Same with obesity. And if I"m not paying for them through insurance, I'm paying for them through tax dollars often enough. Most especially in regards to the many poor, unwanted babies women on welfare continue to have because their religion forbids birth control. You don't want to pay for their birth control? Fine. Then you pay for their babies. If you don't want to contribute to the health and welfare of people who differ from your views, go live in a country where your religion rules. Quite trying to dictate to the rest of us. You say that's what the government is doing to you, but you ignore the fact that you are the ones who are trying to do the dictating. I don't get to choose what my insurance premiums cover. I don't get to choose where my tax dollars go. I don't complain about it, either. I accept the responsibility of helping others, whether I agree with every little thing or not. I"m not a Christian, but I understand that is a Christian value...loving everyone and having tolerance. I don't recall reading anything where Jesus said women couldn't use birth control, or that you should judge them if they did. And you ARE judging them, if you think you can try to control any aspect of their lives. I agree absolutely with all the comments that suggest you start caring about all the born children that need help in this world and stop obsessing on the birth control habits of others.

        March 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Report abuse |
  44. screamin raven

    Personally I feel men should wear condoms to stop STD spread unless making a baby. Of course I'm a Protestent with a science degree so that would be too practical a solution and not argumentative enough.

    February 22, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      BLASPHEMER!

      February 22, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      Why did it take so long for a man to make such a wise statement? Everyone puts the whole responsibility of women. If more men took responsibility, there would be far fewer problems.

      February 22, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anne-Marie

      Or this Country could just approve the Male BCP, like they have in some countries in Europe, its like getting snipped with out actually have to get snipped. it is said to be 100% effective (last time I checked) and have little to no side effects. That would surely take the pressure of woman don't you think.

      February 24, 2012 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
  45. Jennifer

    I applaud the author's efforts to raise up women and girls and promote healthy self-image. What I fail to understand is how this author believes that a mandate to allow access to contraception equals a NEED for women to be on contraception. That is not the case! I fervently support access to contraception but also respect the choice NOT to be on birth control. That's like saying allowing access to abortion equals a NEED for every woman to have an abortion (which is another hot topic entirely). If the author truly wants to support "woman," I'd hope she would understand the difference between being given a choice, and being forced. I also don't appreciate her implication that women on birth control lack self control. Birth control does not equal promiscuity, but even if you choose to be promiscuous, that's none of anyone else's business! I hope people notice that just because the author is a woman, she does not speak for or necessarily support all women's choices. If you need to borrow a grain of salt, I'd be happy to provide it.

    February 22, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
  46. R. Glenn

    I don't think it is wise to force insurance programs to cover anything that is not in their interest. Mandating viagra or birth control coverage just continues to increase the premiums on our health insurance. A sure fire way of forcing us onto government insurance programs. Insurance programs should be "a la carte." They once were this way before and were very affordable. Government meddling and forcing coverage of everything has destoyed our medical coverage and has made it cost prohibitive to everyone anymore. Think about it.

    February 22, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      For those of us who cannot have children or do not want to have children, the idea that we have to pay for those who do is ludicrous. The largest piece of the pie in insurance premiums goes to maternal/child=prenatal care & childbirth. If it wern't for people like me, people like you could NOT afford to have a child while paying your own way. If insurance companies allow people like me to not have to donate to the cause, people like you would be paying out of sight insurance premiums. Quit your whining about what little bit of an insurance premium might be involved in the cost of paying for contraception.....that cost is nowhere near as expensive as maternal care!

      February 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Melanie

      I have thought about it and I find your comparison of birth control to viagra highly offensive. In addition the issue of health coverage is not that people should be able to choose what they want covered, but rather the insurance company does not even offer the coverage so that I may choose it. My insurance plan does not include coverage for any medicine unless it is administered in a hospital as part of inpatient treatment. I was not 'offered' the choice to select pharmacy coverage even at an increased premium. The government is saying that there is a minimum of care that they are expecting insurance companies to offer regardless of cost, be it what is covered or the expectation that you are not denied coverage the first time you make a significant claim on the insurance that you have paid into for years. What's to keep an insurance company from deciding that since heart attacks are entirely preventable conditions provided you eat nothing but fruit and berries for the majority of your lifetime, they are not going to cover the costs associated with treatment of heart attacks. No option for you to select that coverage. In all instances it costs them too much so they will just not offer it.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        Exactly! What if I feel it is a sin or immoral for someone to live their lives in a way that produces heart attacks, diabetes, cancer, etc., and I said I don't want to be forced to pay for those people's coverage?

        February 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      R. Glenn, as I understand it, it is not the insurance companies who have the problem with dispensing the contraceptives; it is the Catholics who think they should be able to pick and choose what aspects of medical coverage to cover based on their religious beliefs. Maybe in a different world we could all pick and choose what we want to fund, and what we do not, but that's not the world we live in. We all pay taxes for things we don't agree with, and most of us pay insurance premiums to cover costs of people who choose lifestyles that lead to their poor health. By your reasoning, why should I pay for a lung cancer patient who chose to smoke for so many years? Or have my tax dollars go to support women who have babies every couple of years in order to stay on welfare?

      February 24, 2012 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
  47. Naomi

    I guess I fail to understand how coverage of birth control by a non-religious insurance company prohibits anyones ability NOT to use it.... Just because it's covered doesn't by any means you have to use birth control! In fact, I'd say your infringing on others rights by saying your rights are more important than theirs! What about women who have no religious or ethical concern about birth control but are from a disadvantaged socio-economic status that really can't afford the birth control costs, but also can't afford a child or more childern? Their rights matter just as much as do mine. I have 4 kids. That's enough for me. I feel I'd be a bad mother if I had more. All I can say is freedom of choice means you don't have to take it! That's a choice!

    February 22, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Report abuse |
  48. Christian

    I'm confused. Isn't NFP contraception, and thus banned by the church?

    Of course, the bible also says that a woman on her period should not be touched for seven days...so that throws a wrench in planning.

    15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

    February 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
  49. samantha

    Two of today's headlines. Wisconsin: !5 year old starved girl (weight down to 70 lbs) talks about her captivity. Texas: Two 2 year olds tied up, a legally blind 5 year old in a restaint to a filthy mattress. In that same room altogether were 8 children. This is not said by me as a pro or con against birthcontrol or abortion, instead i am asking for all to yell as loudly for those all ready born. There are aprox 500,000 in our fostercare system, either their families coun't take care of them or the families didn't want them. Millions more are in our welfare system. Until America and Americans take takes care of its children, we need choices more than ever. Make your choice and make sure no one works to eliminate choices for everyone even if you do not agree with the choice. Our tax dollars go for the care of all these children in fostercare and in the welfare system. Education and birthcontrol are two of many answers to these problems.....certainly not all the answers. You casn hold your belief that birthcontrol is a sin....it is for some of you. The greater sin is what happens to unwanted children.......

    February 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
  50. ron

    What a convoluted argument to justify being against contraception.

    February 22, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  51. Michella

    Whatever your personal "choice" is regarding the pill, I'm grateful to President Obama for giving every woman the opportunity to access it. The decision to use or not to use is between a woman and her God, if she has one, or solely hers if she doesn't. And If you want to talk women's rights in the RC church and its "respect for women," let's ordain women to the priesthood.

    February 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
  52. Mike

    We are quickly going bankrupt as a nation and you people are worried about freaking contraception? Does the word "priorities" not meaning anything to you?

    February 22, 2012 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
  53. samantha

    Sorry, everybody....my spellling is atrocious! Can't edit once posted. So try just reading past the typo/spelling errors!

    February 22, 2012 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
  54. J

    Nobody's making you use it. Nobody's making anyone use it.

    It doesn't threaten any of your religious freedoms, unless you mean watching other women take it. But at that point, it's not about freedom anymore.

    Freedom of Religion should be the freedom to practice any religious beliefs, as long as it does not affect the freedoms of another. Leave us alone, and we will leave you alone.

    And, as John Stewart said, "2 Billion in untaxed church earnings last year? Prosecute me that way!"

    February 22, 2012 at 9:33 am | Report abuse |
  55. Colleen

    Fine, I'll pay for my own pill but only if we strip overweight and obese people of their prescription benefits too. After all isn't gluttony one of those seven sins? Why doesn't your church focus on that issue instead? Or how about why do men get Viagra but women shouldn't get the pill? You're article is insulting. Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.

    February 22, 2012 at 9:21 am | Report abuse |
    • Mychele

      I heartily agree.
      Sin is sin.
      And the little blue pill is as unnatural as the contraceptive pill if we're going to think of it that way.
      If a man can't bring his A game, maybe it's the deity's will he retire it and just go fishing.

      February 22, 2012 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      Thank you, Colleen! And while we're at it, how about no more coverage for lung problems caused by cigarettes, and no more coverage for alcoholics who suffer liver damage? Then we could tackle people who get skin cancer because they've tanned too much, etc., etc.

      February 22, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Jennifer Ramirez

    I find it darkly hilarious these comments. From 'religion has made you it's pawn' to 'My life DEPENDS on this pill!' its all just too funny! A mere mention of an idea -a whisper – of the concept that women can live full and complete lives without hormonal contraception and everyone goes berserk! Those ladies cling to that package of bc pills like it is oxygen and give many varied reasons why they NEED them, and how DARE someone say they don't! The feminists and big pharma have succeeded in convincing decades of women that they are incomplete and even wrong to be women without taking a hormone every month to keep them from being women. Their plan has worked so well that there's one commentor thinks that menstruation is abnormal. It's funny, oh so funny...

    You keep taking those pills. You keep believing that you need to be sterile to 'fulfill your dreams'. You keep telling yourself that being a woman means denying your base femininity. The rest of us who have been witness to the damage that birth control wreaks on a body and on a family will know better, but you keep on believing that you're not whole without it!! HAHAHA!

    February 22, 2012 at 8:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      LOL! "Lady, put down the Kool-Aid and step away!" Why do fear-mongers think people take them seriously? Do they see what acceptable arguments are composed of, and realize such a thing is beyond their ability?

      Lay out the facts you use to reach your conclusions if you are going to rattle your sabre.

      February 22, 2012 at 11:27 am | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      You can laugh and you can "knock it", all that means is you what you believe and believe it it is the only way to feel. Once I had my hystectomy I finally had my femininity. I was free of pain, I was clean and I was ust plain FREE. You haven't walked my path so you really have no concept of what I am talking about. On the other hand, I have walked your path and I know the difference!

      February 22, 2012 at 11:49 am | Report abuse |
    • becky

      I'm sorry Jennifer but I'm not on the pill because I believe I can achieve my dreams by being sterile – I'm on the pill because I have a widely known condition called Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and being on the pill regulates my body, so that in the future when I'm ready to have children, maybe I can do so without the use of fertility drugs. The pill is not used solely to deem a woman "sterile". Its used in the treatment of different health conditions. That's why the topic is women's health.

      February 22, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • Marie

        I am trying to reply to someone who brought up PCOS as a reason for taking the Pill – hope you are still reading this thread b/c I was in the same boat for years. Then I read a little article in one of those women's mags about controlling PCOS with diet – specifically by eating equal grams of carbs and protein in every meal. There's a book but I didn't bother reading it, just went with that tiny blurb and it changed my life. Amazing results that I won't go all TMI with but I cannot stress enough – Life. Changing.

        As to the main topic – it is a strange blessing that the smokescreen surrounding Obama's violation of the second amendment rights of Catholics has opened up this long overdue conversation about artificial contraception – especially the Pill. There certainly is a case for banning it just like any other Group 1 carcinogen that is also toxic to the environment, but not without addressing the misogynistic society that clings to it so desperately, so determined to repress female fertility no matter what – even if we have to pay for it with our lives, or the lives of our children.

        February 23, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        Birth control, in its various forms, only represses a woman's fertility in the sense that a woman gets to control whether or not, or when, to have children. No one is saying women's fertility should be repressed or thrown away! Stop being so hysterical. No one is forcing hysterectomies on Catholic, or any other, women. A lot of women want to have choice as far as bearing children. Why is that anybody else's business but their own? No one said Catholic women HAVE to take birth control pills just because some choose to do so.

        February 24, 2012 at 12:59 am | Report abuse |
    • BCount

      Hooray for missing the point.

      It's not that every woman NEEDS the pill. It's that ever woman should have the CHOICE to get it, and that choice shouldn't be made by by your employer or insurance company. Mandating that all women be covered for contraception ensures that each woman can make her own choice.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      You have your own opinions and experiences with the pill, now can you leave it up to the rest of women to have their own experiences and make their own choices? I don't particularly like the pill, although I have used it, because of the potential health risks. But regardless, I don't think that I have the right to tell other women they can't try it or use it. Bottom line, women should have choice. Most meds have very dangerous side effects. Just watch tv commercials or read magazine ads. That doesn't stop doctors from prescribing them, or people from taking them. If people choose to use these meds despite the risks, it isn't up to me to deny them. I just hope that the pharmaceutical companies will come up with safer meds to prevent pregnancy, and/or that people will educate themselves and find alternative, less risky ways to achieve what they want. Hey, alcohol is a poison, yet we sell it and it's legal.Plenty of people use it at great risk, from alcoholism to car wrecks. Prohibition didn't work, and neither should religions be allowed to deny women choice.

      February 24, 2012 at 5:25 am | Report abuse |
  57. Juliabas

    Hooray! Finally a point of view from a faithful, practicing, Catholic woman. This is the voice that we are not hearing from the media in this deabate.

    February 22, 2012 at 7:25 am | Report abuse |
  58. BCount

    Is she not aware that, as a Catholic, her religion places the blame for all the world's sin on women?

    February 22, 2012 at 12:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Juliabas

      Tell me where it says that in the Catehchism of the Catholic Church

      February 22, 2012 at 7:22 am | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        You need to do some research on your the Catholic religion. Are you not aware that in the 3rd and 4th centuries, the fathers of the Catholic church made a decision to blame Eve for the downfall of man? Before that, it was often construed that Eve chose to eat the apple that would give her wisdom, knowledge and choice. Not a bad thing. As it was and is so often in organized patriarchal religions, and especially the older ones, MEN determined what would go into the holy books and what the interpretation would be. Read "The Shadow of the Third Century," by A.B. Kuhn. Very enlightening.

        February 22, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Melanie

        While you might be correct in your assertion about the Catholic church deciding to blame Eve for the downfall of man, I do not believe that is the current view of the church. Is it right to condemn a religion for its assertions over a thousand years ago? At one point medical science advocated everything from the usage of leeches to creating a hole in your skull to let the evil spirits out. I don't think doctors currently advocate these practices, but should I condemn them because their profession at one time did?

        February 23, 2012 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Actually, leeches, although rarely used are still sometimes used to bring blood circulation to an area of the body. Every now & then there is an article in the news on the use of leeches. As for drilling a hole in the skull, ....It a widely used to relieve pressure on the brain. Sometime it is a hole in the skull, sometimes it is the temporary (or permanent) removal of a piece of the skull to give the brain a chance of less damage if there is swelling in the brain. Swelling is evil to the brain, cancer is evil to the brain, a hemmoragic stroke is evil to the brain and to help the brain survive, a hole is made in the brain.

        February 23, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Excuse me....my last sentence should be "a hole is made in the skull". I said a hole is made in the brain.......not what I meant to say.

        February 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Juliabas

        @ Cactuslili
        That is straight out of the DuhVinci Code. The Gospels were written by men who either knew Jesus directly or knew one of his apostles and were written within one hundred years after Christ's death. The Gnostic gospels were written much later.

        Here is a link to the appropriate part of the catechism. I would scroll down to Roman numeral III. Original sin.
        There is nothing here that blames Eve exclusively nor is it implied.
        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

        February 23, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
  59. anna

    She is an oppressed woman.... she needs to liberate her mind...... times have changed....and Obama is honorable in defending women's reproductive rights....

    February 21, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tris

      I've met Valerie. She is anything but oppressed. I've never met Obama, but clearly he has overstepped his role. Valerie is an amazingly smart, articulate and happy woman. She has a beautiful family and what she is working for is long term respect and happiness for her family. She is a strong woman of faith. I wish we could all be more like her.

      February 21, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • musings

        I'll bet she has a rich husband who bankrolls her beautiful feminine lifestyle where it does not matter if you get knocked up.

        March 1, 2012 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
    • MikeM

      "Reproductive rights" aren't under attack. Women currently have easy access to birth control... they don't need Obama's mandate for that.

      February 22, 2012 at 1:28 am | Report abuse |
      • Mychele

        NO Mike, women do have easy access to contraceptives, but under this plan they have easy access to them for nigh on $60 a month if they are not provided thru insurance for a simple co-pay, like your stupid Viagra is and will continue to be!

        That is what this is about. The goose and the gander. And politicians pushing their religion on people who believe otherwise.

        February 22, 2012 at 10:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Jennifer Ramirez

      You do realize that you're being used as a pawn in a much larger much darker game, right? "Liberation" my hinny.....

      February 22, 2012 at 8:16 am | Report abuse |
      • Meredith

        When you start a retort with "You do realize", it is infuriating! Your arrogance does nothing to prove the soundness of your argument and your other characterization of women who take the pill as "clinging to it like oxygen" was equally offensive. Why this assault on others' choices? And "my hinny"? Seriously?

        February 25, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse |
  60. Shannon

    As an educated, independent woman with a career in pharmaceutical research I am 100% in agreement with the author of this article and I cannot say how much NFP has done for me and my husband. NFP is very effective. My husband and I were able to avoid pregnancy during a period of time when I knew I should not get pregnant because it would jeopardize my ability to donate marrow to a cancer patient. NFP is as effective as the pill when properly instructed. It is also something that ANY woman can use even if her cycle is irregular. It is also making a big difference in areas of the 3rd world where Mother Teresa's nuns teach it to impoverished families so they can effectively plan their children. My husband and I both have extensive science backgrounds and we actually read the data that has shown NFP's effectiveness. I admit we were skeptical when we first heard about it, but it really works. I know I never want to stuff myself full of chemicals and hormones when there is a perfectly healthy and effective way to plan my family.

    February 21, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Report abuse |
  61. nic

    "you need contraception"

    I'm pretty sure that's not actually what he meant at all. The author of this piece is definitely misinterpreting Obama's statement for her own purposes.

    February 21, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Juliabas

      No, Obama and his administration have repeatedly said "women need and deserve contraception." I find that offensive.

      February 22, 2012 at 7:21 am | Report abuse |
      • Waste

        How about the interjection of the word "some". Perhaps, "some" women do. Stay out of peoples bedrooms and you will be free!

        February 22, 2012 at 8:18 am | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        It is almost as bad as "Women need and deserve health-care." Crazy talk.

        February 22, 2012 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        To the person who said they find Obama's statement "Women need and deserve birth control," what are you offended by? He didn't say ALL women need or deserve it. Do you just dislike Obama and try to twist his words? He didn't say any woman would be forced to use bc. It's true that lots of women need birth control for many different reasons and that is their choice. Are you just angry that you can't make decisions for others? How would you like others making decisions for you?

        February 22, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        It is obvious that Pres Obama was GENERALIZING. If he made a mistake, it was not speaking more literal to accomodate those with narrow thought processes.

        February 22, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
  62. Charlie

    It's a shame to see a woman whom I'm sure would be otherwise intelligent write an article such as this that shows she's nothing more than another pawn in the game Big Religion plays with the rights and access to choice that all citizens of the WORLD (not just America) should have. Nobody is forcing you to use birth control, but if you want someone else to take all the "big, scary" decisions away from you, stop talking about "the genius of women." People like you, who want less choice and less self determination, are what's wrong with society, and what allow tyrants to take away the rights of those who actually want to lead their own lives as they best see fit.

    February 21, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • MikeM

      Where do you get the idea that someone else made the decision for her? She could walk down to the pharmacy just like any other woman. Your comments are degrading.

      February 22, 2012 at 1:30 am | Report abuse |
  63. 38Gaucho

    Did anyone tell this wench she had to use birth control?

    February 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tris

      Anger is not very attractive. She didn't say she was forced to use birth control.
      I'm sure there are many good therapists in your area that could help you work thru your need to call someone who differs in opinion nasty names. You can disagree, that doesn't mean she is wrong.

      February 21, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        My goodness, touchy, touchy! Since when is wench a nasty word?? And where do you see anger in that comment??

        February 22, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Report abuse |
  64. Dinah

    A woman from a good family with money has an easy time telling the wonders of having kids without protection. Good for her. The reality is that people who breed like rabbits are not the ones that are typically ideal parents for bringing kids into this world. They should be giving out free contraception and abortions like candy in my opinion, especially in high schools. I'd rather my taxes aid prevention than paying for kids who dumb down our school systems and then paying for their jail food. Separation of church and state. What is best for our society? Prevention of unwanted children. Read the statistics and learn how violent crime dropped 30% after the Roe vs. Wade decision because the criminals were simply not being born as much as in the previous two decades.

    February 21, 2012 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • MikeM

      Are you talking about that study from Freakonomics? It turns out that they made a pretty egregious mistake when they entered their data into their computers. That "study" has been thoroughly debunked. There's no data showing any correlation between abortion and a reduction in crime.

      February 22, 2012 at 1:32 am | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        It turns out the study is still valid and a highly regarded article. The criticism by Joyce, Foote and Goetz did not gain traction and are not considered significant. Joyce's articles have actually been pulled from their available locations.
        Levitt dismissed Foote and Goetz by addressing their concerns and re-running the numbers using the methods they suggest. The results ended up identical, which Levitt addresses in a follow-up article.
        All this material is available if you look, with the possible exception of Joyce's articles.

        Don't take my word for it though. As with everything, read the source material and form your own opinion. Otherwise, you may just end up believing only what you want to believe.

        February 22, 2012 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
  65. TrueReality

    Finally, someone (a woman, no less) who really gets it! Most of the pro-contraception and pro-abortion propaganda is written to make fertility and pregnancy sound like a disease, whereas it's actually the proper functioning of the human body. It's not a disease – you're just too obsessed with your own pleasure to care about the potential consequences. Contraception isn't medication, because it doesn't cure anything – it actually suppresses the normal, natural, healthy operation of the body.

    February 21, 2012 at 11:10 am | Report abuse |
    • HawaiiGuest

      I suggest you research what birth control pills can actually do for a woman.

      February 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jennifer Ramirez

        Do you mean blood clots, sterilization, strokes, increased instances of breast cancer? Yeah, I've researched it. Have you?

        February 22, 2012 at 8:17 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Jennifer, This is for another of your posts. All the things you listed for BC pills can also be attributed to pregnanciy. A study of 3400 moms to be was just published 20 February. 30% of those pregnant women had one complication. 5% had to complications. The most frequent complications were high blood pressure (pre-eclampsia) and gestational diabetes. It also said that those with pre-eclampsia were at 31% higher risk for showing symptoms of cardio vascular disease by the time they were 50 years old. Women who developed gestational diabetes were 26% more at risk for developing symptoms of cardio vascular disease by the time they were 50 years old. The underlying factor for the moms to be who developed these problems during their pregnancy was they were over weight. Now, why are you and the rest of all who are talking about the complications of BCPs NOT yelling about over weight moms to be? I mean you should be as adament about the weight issue, which is a very controllable issue, as you are about BCPs....More so, cause the fetus is at risk ...!

        February 22, 2012 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        It does not seem that Mrs. Ramirez is interested in a discussion. She thinks she is going to convince someone with emotion.

        February 22, 2012 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Patrick, Jennifer rarely comes back after we answer her remark. No one against BCPs has come back regarding weight issues. I've mentioned it a couple of times and other posters have mentioned it. Excess weight and excessive weight is an issue many women face. For a women who wants to get pregnant, is pregnant or has been pregnant, the dangeras are well known cause their Drs have talked to these women. I'll also bet there is a certain percentage of women on this board who are against BCPs and have experienced the complications during pregnancy that I mentioned earlier. Quite often with pre eclampsia the mother to be has to be hospitalized early to try to get her BP under control and if that isn't possible the baby has to be taken early. These posters know I have spoken the absolute truth......Weight is a controlable issue and the complications can and often does put the fetus in danger. You do not hear anyone saying that this controllable issue is a sin, even when the fetus is put at risk. Why is that? It most certainly is a drain on insurance companies and part of the cause in the cost of our premiums. but there is no one against BCPs complaing about that! Why is that?

        February 23, 2012 at 12:19 am | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        That is a good set of questions.

        February 23, 2012 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Patrick, I also believe they are good questions. I am disappointed that we are not hearing from those people who should answer them.....like the anti BCP people.

        February 23, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
    • ProgressiveOpposition

      Right on the money. I should have told my girlfriend that her (literally) crippling cramps were a natural blessing, a sign her body was working exactly as nature intended.

      Do you take analgesics? Following this logic, using ANY pharmaceutical remedy to inhibit negative symptoms (which may be completely natural in genesis) would be wrong.

      February 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jennifer Ramirez

        "Crippling Cramps" and all the doctor will say is "here. take these for the rest of your life." what if there's something going on in her uterus like a tumor, or endometriosis? Guess what, taking those pils won't cure that. She'll have to deal with taking those pills for the rest of her life. So, why doesn't the doctor really take the time to figure out what is causing heavy cramps instead of shoving MORE hormones to your friend?
        Ah, you don't care. That pill is a miracle!!

        February 22, 2012 at 8:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Cyndi

      Chemical contraceptives are not preventive medicine. They don't prevent any diseases. In fact, they don't cure any medical conditions. Contraceptives are used widely to suppress the symptoms of problems with a woman's reproductive system. This does not mean that contraceptives are truly helping anything. Mainstream medicine has bought the mentality that they should push the pill and cover up the problem. The reason, they can't fix the real problems because they don't care to help or they are ignorant of the actual treatment options. NaPro Technology respects the body of the woman and does seek to diagnose and cure the actual problems women experience with their reproductive system. This form of Natural Family Planning has actually given birth to fully respectable women's reproductive medicine. Amazing... it never uses chemical contraceptives to cover up women's symptoms because it actually strives to cure women. Perhaps you should actually read up on what the pill does to cover up symptoms. Perhaps you should read up on the real medicine that NaPro Technology offers to women, while respecting them at the same time.

      February 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      OH...I get it!!! Obsessive pleasure=sin. Pain & Bleeding=Godly. Very insiteful!!

      February 21, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jennifer Ramirez

        Seriously, I read your comment last night and it really struck me. You honestly think that menstruating is ABNORMAL? It's what EVERY WOMAN DOES!! Is this what young women believe these days? It's astounding how in a few short decades big pharma and feminists have convinced women like you that even having your period is bad! OMG!! You'll believe ANYTHING They tell you, won't you?

        February 22, 2012 at 8:22 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Actually, was responding to another poster who made a statemnt that somehow made "obsessive pleasure" seem wrong. Some women are lucky enough to have normal periods with little discomfort and no exsessive bleeding. Many, many women are not so fortunate. I don't know what young people are thinking these days, I am 60 years old and I have loved my "obsessive pleasure".....since I was 30 years old, had a hysterectomy....cause of PAIN & BLEEDING!

        February 22, 2012 at 10:10 am | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Jennifer, I should have said "I have ENJOYED" my obessive pleasure" and if you read my other posts you will see that I talked about having ovarian cysts since I was a teenager, before I was exually active. I loved my hysterectomy.....30 years later and I still consider it the best surgery ever....for me!!!!!

        February 22, 2012 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
      • becky

        Jennifer – the pill allows me to to have a menstrual cycle – so in fact, the pill makes me a normal woman who has a period every month – without it, I wouldn't get a period and by your means I would be abnormal. Once again – women's health, not just contraception....

        February 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • jon

      so by saying 'natural', are you also admitting to evolution? And since when is it painless to menstruate once a month and to almost die in childbirth? to be honest, i dont care if U dont want contraception, but that shouldnt stop its delivery to people who want and need it

      February 21, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Report abuse |
  66. LIlly

    When you understand the true nature of religion, you will understand why it is so dangerous to follow.

    February 21, 2012 at 10:05 am | Report abuse |
    • TrueReality

      When you understand the true nature of atheism, you will understand why it is even more dangerous to follow.

      February 21, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        I understand it. It is not a difficult concept. It is very liberating. I do admit it does not allow for self-delusion and the empty bliss that comes with ignorance, but to each their own.

        February 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        The true nature of religion: A set of rules, interpreted differently by heads of church as the sole way of living one's life. Too often follwed by parishners by faith alone without thought process. Athiests: Continuous thought process into what is right & and what is wrong, thus living a life as a thinking individual.

        February 21, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Yikes, another GED candidate! What has happened to our education system?!?

        February 21, 2012 at 12:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Years ago when I was living in Englan, I dated this guy I liked very much. Often when we were out with friends, the topic would turn to politics. I heard all "what was wrong" stuff over & over again. I finally said that I wanted to hear the answer and my friend said "The Workers Democratic Party. At the time I didn't know what that "party" was, so I looked it up. The answer...the Nazi Party" Talk about instant fear! I had one more date with my friend and in the conversation I mentioned something about the ability for a person to think for themselves. He said..."I am not sure people should be allowed to think for themselves." His thought reminds me of many religions. Blind faith is supposed to out power a persons thoughts and overcome misgivings in the religion they follow. "Faith" is supposed to be what works when "reason" does not work. I have heard over & over again from people of various different religious paths who will say....."Don't worry about it, just have faith". Or, if a Holy Book/my God says it, it must be true and there is nothing to think about. Anyone or any group who tries to discourage individual thought is a danger.

        February 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Patric, To whom are you posting?

        February 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • TrueReality

        Actually, I think atheism is much more intellectually constrictive than any religion is. With atheism, one is constrained to a purely materialistic, fatalistic worldview. For example, how about the myth of Progress? How stupid is that, this notion that society will continually improve itself by the mere passing of time, denying that we could, in fact, move backwards instead of forwards? That's a direct product of a Darwinistic, atheistic worldview. Actually learn from history, rather than assuming modern superiority, and things have a better chance of improving. But religions of all sorts, or even an acceptance of something supernatural or beyond yourself, is much more liberating than strict atheism, which really is the dullest form of intellect. Of course, I realize that many people who claim to be atheists actually believe all kinds of things that are incompatible with true atheism – but I was talking about atheism itself, not the befuddled people who can't even satisfactorily define what they believe.

        February 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        While in a vacuum it may seem that Theism is liberating, in fact Theism is typically applied though indoctrination. The vast majority of Theists have only embraced one faith, and their freedom provided by being able to accept things only via desire is never realized. They therefore end up thinking the same set of ideology their whole being, typically out of fear of what stepping outside of it would involve (ostracizing, the difficult psychological process of breaking away from a paradigm, etc.)

        The ultimate problem, though, is that Theists have to suspend a portion of critical thinking process and reason to accept a tenant that allows them to accept further tenants that are not based on reality.

        Whatever you do, don't confuse non-theism with Darwin, Evolutionary theory, materialism or fatalism. Atheism is not synonymous with any of those words. Atheism is the lack of belief in things beyond empirical experience or what can be logically inferred from such experience. Nothing more. Think if it as the process that judges, lawyers, engineers, architects and scientists use in their everyday world and you will get the idea.

        February 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        My second comment was actually intended for a different thread, that of TrueReality, who claimed "contraception isn't medication". Sorry for the confusion, I obviously miss-posted.

        February 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • jon

        ( btw i love how these names like family, stability, and common sense are all there since their trying so hard to look legitimate, i.e., true reality? anyways, atheism doesnt support that claim of always working and progressing, thats actually capitalism. and since when is evolution (darwinism) constant progression? dinosaurs? other mass extinctions like the one 500 million years ago? evolution is more of a constant cycle, we've just been lucky and have had life manage to survive and then continue evolving each time

        February 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • markusp

        I don't recall atheists flying airliners into our skyscrapers. Atheists did not engage in the Crusades, then have the pope decree that it wasn't outright murder. No atheists of whom I am aware tortured Spaniards in an Inquisition, telling them to repent to atheism. Atheist priests are not molesting young male church volunteers, and are not driving around in limousines and living in plush mansions at the expense of their membership.

        The author wrote: "All acknowledge that the values society sets for woman don’t always measure up to the fullness of her personal dignity. They separate, reduce, commoditize, selectively ignore, and sometimes outright reject certain aspects of woman, subjecting her to powerful pressure to conform."

        This is precisely the manner in which catholic women are treated within that archaic religion. Their bible was written by middle eastern men, who have a history of treating women poorly. They still treat women poorly. Too many christians deceive themselves genuflecting in front of a crucifix with a caucasian man nailed to it, versus a middle eastern skin tone. These men have upheld the christian tradition of blaming women for taking the apple from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and this was deliberate. It told the masses, "don't try to educate yourselves, or you might discover that all the things we're telling you are nothing more than a bunch of sh!t. Man made god in his own image.

        February 22, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • cactuslili

      Wow! So you understand the true nature of religion? Is that all religions, or just your own? You must be proud to be so enlightened compared to the rest of us who blog. Ever heard of "Those that say, don't know, and those that know, don't say?" Wise words written by wiser people than you. But pardon me if you're that spiritually elevated. Can I ask just what is the true nature of religion? I want to know if it explains why people like you think you can tell others how to live.

      February 22, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Wow, cactuslili. Talk about the point flying over your head. Try reading within context before you open your mouth and spew foolishness.

        February 22, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • cactuslili

        Patrick, I did take it out of context and I apologize much further down in the blog. Sorry about that.

        February 22, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        No worries, and kudos to you for your further statement.

        February 22, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
  67. armyluke

    Tim 2:11. If she is so catholic, she should follow that chapter and verse.

    February 21, 2012 at 4:37 am | Report abuse |
  68. Joseph

    Valerie Pokorny's arguments are NOT sound for a population in which sections can neither read nor write. Sympto-Thermal Method etc will sound Greek to the majority of women who need, and will suffer without, contraceptives. As a catholic woman, she does not appear to have compassion for the catholic women world wide who produce children they can hardly afford to feed. She needs to travel more widely in the US and interact with women less privileged than her to fully appreciate women's needs.

    February 21, 2012 at 3:29 am | Report abuse |
    • musings

      Everything about her screams wealth and privilege of which she is somehow unconscious. Perhaps she sees herself as relatively less privileged because she lives in a state like Texas, and is not a gazillionaire. But she doesn't get the woman who stands on her feet all day and works at minimum wage who can barely afford a child she may already have.

      March 1, 2012 at 10:35 am | Report abuse |
  69. glenn

    I wonder if the same medical insurance that does not provide the "Pill" for women does however pay for Viagara for men. Hmmmm If I understand the authors point of view by following NFP as a married couple if the penis isn't working then God must have a plan for that male not to spread his seed and to have a medically assisted woody is wrong.

    February 21, 2012 at 1:18 am | Report abuse |
  70. dondon898

    I am a man. When I am forced to wear a condom, i feel denigrated. My special man part works just fine. My fertility is not a disease. It does not need to be repressed, manipulated, or rejected. I should be free to experience what it feels like to cause and unwanted pregnancy. Free to experience an STD. My women should not stop me from fully experiencing pleasure by putting a barrier between us. Does this sound different coming from a man?

    Just kidding.

    February 20, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • lili

      Thank you doddon898. Yes, there are reasons other than preventing pregnancy for using contraceptives.

      February 21, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
  71. rosebud99

    Being Catholic denigrates her as a woman.

    February 20, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lab

      I need a like button for this post 🙂

      February 20, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sue

      I'm glad you are in the position to judge. Afterall, it always makes you feel better to make fun of and reject something that is too deep for you to appreciate and understand. Yes, ignorance is bliss...stay blissful.

      I'm Catholic. I like it. Imagine that.
      And by the way, I accept your religion. I have no need to make fun of your faith. I respect your decision to believe as you choose. Try it.

      February 21, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Report abuse |
  72. Jen

    I think there is a key misconception in how many Catholics are responding to the contraception-insurance issue. Many Catholics (though not all) believe contraception is a grave sin. Therefore, they feel that including it in their insurance packages is also sinful because they are in some way (though indirectly) participating in contraception. Forcing them to do this would be forcing them to violate their consciences. Whether or not you or I agree with contraception, I would hope most of us would agree that no one should be forced to violate their consciences, regardless of the issue. This is certainly complex, but let's at least acknowledge some sort of respect for one another's religious viewpoints and make policy choices that allow people to follow their consciences without violating someone else's (e.g., creating a plan where women can choose to contracept without having those who are against contraception pay for it).

    February 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Emma

      There are lots of things in a basic insurance plan that people may or may not want or need. If a woman feels it's against her conscience to use birth control then don't use it, that's up to her and her doctor. I'm pretty sure nowhere in the bible says that having to opition to do something is a sin. People who follow the catholic doctrine are presented with the option to sin daily but if they don't do whatever it is they haven't sinned. So if you feel taking birth control is a sin then don't take it, but don't ruin the lives of the women who want it in your religious crusade.

      February 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        our taxes go towards pre emptive invasion war, torture, the death penalty. I believe this is all a form of murder. I cannot designate where my taxes go. I am made to be an accomplce because my taxes are used to support these things. High risk moms who know they are high risk, purposely get pregnant and then have a baby with anomalies. I believe this is assult to a minor....my taxes and my insurance premiums help to care for these babies. I have no choice. so don't expect me to get all "understanding" about what a catholic or noncatholic person feels towards the use of contraceptives being murder.

        February 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • Emma

        You're lucky that you have the money to pay for the health care you need or want. Alot of women aren't so lucky. I'm asking the people who are so against allowing these people access to be "understanding" for the women who give up their children hoping they have a better life only for them to be abused and starved, for the 16 year old runaway who made a mistake and feels her only option is to dump her baby in a dumpster, for the women who go hungry so the children they didn't want can eat at night, for the women working at McDonalds and Kmart and the gas station just to try to make ends meet. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to care for every child they conceive and think of how many lives might be better in the long run if they had been given access to a way to safeguard against an unwanted pregnancy. Religious rhetoric is ruining so many lives of people who don't even believe in it.

        And yes some women at high risk purposly get pregnant but have you stopped to consider that women who TRY to get pregnant when they are high risk are usually aware of the possible consiquences. Don't lump together people who make their choices and people who are having their choices made for them.

        February 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Emma, I agree with you.....I have made many of the same points you are making in several posts I've written.

        February 20, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Chuck

        I'm pretty sure that the bible contains no reference whatsoever to birth control. That's why this whole debate is so contrived.

        February 20, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dorothy Wagar

      Where do you people get off with this "I should not have to pay for it" bit? I have to share in the costs of care of numerous people and conditions of which I don't approve, like drunken drivers, motorcyclists (who may or may not use helmets) who insist on riding their terribly dangerous machines, illnesses related to smoking, obesity or whatever, etc. Suppose I could decide that I wanted to opt out from contributing to the care of any "self-inflicted" illness or injury?

      Of course its not really the cost you object to, since prevention is always cheaper than having a child. I truly cannot fathom why you and your ilk have such a great desire to inflict your thinking on others who do not share your views. No one is forced to use birth control, but everyone who wishes to plan their family (or whether to have children at all) should certainly have that right.

      Although I bore four children fifty years ago, I am personally offended by those who have large families these days, We have no need of another baby boom. China (which I have visited five times) may have taken drastic measures to limit their exploding population but most Chinese I have spoken with on the subject are satisfied with their system of family planning. You may have more than one child if you wish to pay the financial penalty ir you are not an urban dweller. They look at some of their neighbors (India, Pakistan, Viet Nam, etc., and they are pleased with the prosperity they enjoy which is not shared by those in overcrowded neighboring countries.

      Be glad that YOU are free to choose to have as many children as you wish, but let others make that choice for themselves. Why should you have any say in what others choose to do? Of course you (as a citizen) must pay your share for the support of our country, as decided by your fellow citizens, and you can not pick and choose.

      February 21, 2012 at 1:12 am | Report abuse |
    • lili

      By that reasoning, if a woman who wants birth control but is prevented from having it by others' religious views, then can she ask those religious people to help pay for the delivery and upbringing of an unwanted child? I know that is a ridiculous example, but please, by your reasoning, you ask the rest of us to respect your religious views. What about you respecting our birth control views?

      February 21, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rationalintn

      More Catholic women believe contraception is acceptable to use than the limited few who still dwell in the Dark Ages.

      February 21, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
  73. samantha

    Okay, I tried to post the results of a study done on pregnant moms and CNN wouldn't let me post it! Why???

    February 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      3400 moms to be. 30 percent had one complication. 5 percent had 2 complications.

      February 20, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        those with gestational diabetes had 26 per cent higher cardiac risk factors by the time they were 50 for heart disease
        those with high BP/pre eclampsia had a31 per cent higher cardiac risk factors by the time they were 50 years old.

        February 20, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Pre eclmpsia & gestational diabetes were most often found in over weight women.

        February 20, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        insurance premiums & taxes pay for the care of the moms to be & the babies both high risk.

        February 20, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      "weight" is a control issue. I think it deserves as much time and effort from those against contraception vocally and in writing as they give about not using contraceptive/birth control pills etc.

      February 20, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Emma

    I am a 23 year old woman. My boyfriend and I live off of less than 20k per year, we have a tiny one-room apartment and there are weeks where we maybe eat one meal a day because thats all the food we can afford. I could not imagine bringing a child into that situation. I'm lucky enough to still be on my parents insurance which covers my birth control, but many women who would like access to birth control are not as lucky as I am. I understand that certain individuals would rather choose to use NFP or let god decide when is the right time for them to get pregnant and that is their decision. No one wants to force the pill down anyones throat but the option to take it should be available to everyone who wants to. With out insurance it can be a very expensive bill every month and unfortunately if I had to make the decision between rent and birth control, rent would come first. Ultimately what will cost the country more? Monthy birth control pills or TANF or foster care for the unwanted children who's conception could have easily been prevented?

    February 20, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doug

      Bravo! I salute you for your courage.

      February 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
  75. Yo

    This woman's writing is totally off the mark.
    No one is FORCING anyone to take contraceptive.

    What the plan does, is to make it POSSIBLE for EVERYONE, not just the richer people, to take it WHEN THEY WANT.

    Claiming that Obama says she has to "alter a part of myself that’s working properly in order to be free or fulfilled" is nonsense. No one says that you have to. No one.

    But if you WANT, you CAN.

    I understand that CNN tries to give a forum for both sides of the argument. I also understand that it is hard to find anyone with an IQ higher then 75 that is against giving poor people access to contraceptives. But this article is so bad, that it serves no purpose whatsoever.

    February 20, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
  76. Adam

    What's most amusing to me is that the great majority of those opposed to oral contraceptives have no idea of what it is or how it works.

    Uninformed opinions are as insightful and valuable as the information that informs them.

    February 20, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
  77. Reason

    ...and if YOU would do those things simply because you wanted to follow an unjust law then YOU are hardly worth of the name "Patrick...nobleman".

    February 20, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Reason

    Furthermore, your definition of "team playing" is flawed. If I'm on a football team and we want to take out the leading rusher of the other team and my coach and my fellow players say "You hold his leg and John here will run his helmet into it so that it breaks or at least takes him out of the game. Common! Be a team player!" Should I comply?

    February 20, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      Depends. Do you want to do the legally appropriate thing? Then no. Do you want to adhere to the morality of your team, regardless of laws? then yes.

      Anything else?

      February 20, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        Yes, actually. And if the coach said the "laws" of being on this team are that you do as I say, and I say break his leg even if you think its wrong?

        February 20, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Then you have a judicial issue. Do the new laws being applied by the coach avoid conflict with the dominant law of the situation? and is the coach legally enabled to create law? If the answer is yes to both, then there is no conflict. If the answer is no to either question, then he is operating outside the law and the problem is nullified.

        Next.

        February 20, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
  79. Marianne Q

    I was raped when I was 19. I was a virgin at the time, I wasn't out looking for a man, I wasn't drinking, I wasn't "asking for it." I went to a football game to see one of my friends play, left the group I was with in the bleachers to use the bathroom and a man with a knife pulled me into one of the stalls and told me if I screamed he would cut my throat. When he was done with me he slammed my head into the concrete floor until I passed out. I woke up in the hospital three days later. I found out I was pregnant a few weeks after that and immediatly sought an abortion. I have seen pictures of babies in utero, I know they begin growing little faces and hands, I know that the Bible says each one of them has a soul, but frankly all that tiny blob of cells was to me was a reminder of my violation and I would have rather risked going to Hell than to have to carry it full-term. So I thought then and still do. Leave us the option to make the most basic and important decisions as women, the state has no business telling any woman that she has to be physically penetrated for an ultrasound before she can have an abortion, it has no right to tell a woman that she can't get contraception. Period.

    February 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Reason

      AGAIN, you HAVE the OPTION. We just wont pay for it!

      February 20, 2012 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Then you are criminals.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        Nooo.. we just take a penalty.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Peter

        Funny how no Conservatives who are so worried about 1 penny going to abortion have no issues with all the dollars that go to putting people to death. the Pope is pretty clear on the Death Penalty..He is very against but no outcry about this.. Hmmm I wonder why?

        February 20, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        You say "potayto", I say "potahto"

        February 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • lili

        For those of you who cry over having to pay for insurances that cover birth control, what about all the unwanted children you say we have to give birth to?? You don't think we, as taxpayers, pay to take care of those children through the welfare system? If you insist on women giving birth to unwanted children, then YOU and your fellow believers take on the responsibility of raising them! I know plenty of women who are on welfare and have baby after baby in order to stay on it. A lot of those children end up in CPS and foster homes. Who do you think pays for that? Or they're abused. Do you want to pay for their hospital bills and counseling to help them get over their abuse? You want all these women who get pregnant because they're ignorant about birth control to carry to full term? Then you accept responsibility for the children they are not capable of raising.

        February 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sarah R

      My heart goes out to you. Thank you for sharing your story.

      February 20, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Report abuse |
  80. Reason

    I have already asked several times if someone can show in in the article where Mrs. Pokorny says contraceptives should not be available. She is giving her opinion on the implications of its use. DONT BUY THE TALKING POINTS MEANT TO SCARE YOU! You can still get your carcinogens (I mean pill) if you want. HHS Mandate is just an issue of PAYMENT! THATS ALL!

    February 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      The primary means of accessing healthcare in this country is through insurance. Therefor, the denial of coverage for health procedures or medication by a health insurance policy is effectively the same as denying access to that procedure or medication, particularly when the primary and most affordable means of obtaining health insurance is through one's employer.

      Likewise, ensuring (or mandating) the coverage of said medical intervention by health insurance policies is the practical equivalent of ensuring access to it. It is very common to mandate the basic, minimal requirements of health insurance policies in order to guarentee a basic standard of access to healthcare, in fact the requirement of contraception coverage is standard in most states (yet there's been little to no controversy until just now? An interesting coincidence?). Contraception is a basic, fundamental aspect of women's health – whether its for the treatment of a large number of medical conditions or the realization of her own reproductive preferences.

      February 20, 2012 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
  81. Kathleen

    I am a catholic woman against contraception, but I believe that the hormonal pill should not be denied to any woman. It is outrageous that our church has made this distiction in Vatican City and our American Bishops have not. It IS a health issue! These pills are not only used for Birth Control, and I believe we should stop calling them that. They are form of hormonal therapy. There are many major diseases and syndromes that a woman could need these pills for and because our Old Male Bishops don't know anything about the female body they are denying this necessary medication to women who need it. I need it and I am Catholic, but it is not a contraceptive for me. On the contrary it is the only way I will ever be able to have a child! LEARN WHAT THE PILL IS, STOP BEING IGNORANT!

    February 20, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Reason

      This is not about DENYING it to anyone! Those are the administrations talking points to freak everyone out. It's just about mandating who pays for it. That's all. And if women are poor medicaid/medicare already pays for it. Vatican City DOES NOT pay for contraceptives.

      February 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • CMoses

      The other aspect is that the administration is not differentiating between different types of contraceptives. There are some which clearly have non-contraceptive medical uses, and there are some that do not. There are some that, in the Church's belief of live at conception, can cause an abortion. The Catholic Church has been THE largest voice against abortions in this country since day one. To now mandate that they have to pay for people to get access to those drugs is more than just a slap in the face. The administration's compromise was a joke, but what might have gone over better was to push for those drugs that can be used for non-contraceptive uses and have legitimate health uses outside of contraception. That would have been a start. The morning after pills that offer a super-high shock of estrogen and progestin to remedy mistaken one-night stands, has no such use of helping a woman regulate an otherwise irregular and painful cycle.

      March 2, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Report abuse |
  82. Slurry

    How about respecting everyone's beliefs? Not everyone is Catholic, not everyone is in love with the idea of adding to the already growing population! There are 9 billion people and counting on this little planet of ours and for those of us who would rather have a healthy, stable human race as opposed to an explosion of people we can neither feed nor clothe (moon cities require resources to start and maintain btw) I would rather have to the choice not to add to the problem. You make your own choices and leave me to mine!!!

    February 20, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Reason

      I WILL leave your choices up to you and so will the Catholic Church. You pay for your choices and we will pay for ours. If the govt doesn't want us to have tax exempt status then change the tax code but for now I'm not asking you to foot my dr bills and I should not be FORCED to pay for something I believe is immoral. You should not be FORCED to not have your choice. Problem solved. Pay for your choices.

      February 20, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        It does not work that way. If you are morally opposed to a legal requirement, you are not exempted. If you are morally opposed to your money being used to take human life, cause pollution, plan a space colony or providing our socialist system of education, you are not given the option to avoid doing so. You are part of the team. If you don't want to live by the team rules, find another team.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        Patrick , one cannot be morally obligated to a law. In fact, if a law is immoral we have not obligation to follow it. We give to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is Gods. Our conscience properly belongs to God. And yes, we do have an option... take the penalty. Which, by the way, we will.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        One cannot be morally obligated to not commit murder? "Reason" is obviously one of those sarcastic nicknames, like a tall guy named shorty.
        At least you admit you would have to be a criminal to carry forth your morals in this case. You still have a legal obligation to follow it, do you not? Why or why not?
        PS. I have no gods. They do not apply in discussion I am involved with, logically speaking.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        Lets draw out your line of thinking... If a law is passed that I must pay for slave ships to deliver slaves to our country, must I pay it? If a law is passed that I must pay for the gas to be put in gas chambers for Jews to die, must I pay it? If a law is passed that I must pay for the doctors to perform forced abortions in the rice fields of China, must I pay it? This is an matter of principle so we must think it through like this. This very country was founded by British men and woman who wanted to escape a rule of law trying to force them to do things against their religion. I do have a choice and it does work that way. Freedom is the ability to choose the Good and Obama is NOT my God.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        I won't compare my philosophy grades with yours. Two words Patrick... "Natural Law."

        February 20, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        One word: irrelevant.
        Stay on the topic.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        You know the answers to those questions: legally, yes. To refuse would put you in a legal bind. Why you choose is irrelevant, as are your gods. This is a legal matter. You can claim self-righteousness until the end of the universe, but it means nothing to those of us working within the system. Morality is like faiths and fingerprints – unique to each of us.
        Live in this world. Whatever other worlds you may think exist can't come until you leave this one. Stay focused.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        Patrick, people facilitating the underground railroad in the time of slavery were "criminals." People hiding Jews from Nazis were "criminals" under the law. They followed their conscience (and in many cases Christian beliefs) rather than the "law" of the time. If you want to group me with those people... Thanks for the compliment, truly!

        February 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        ...and if YOU would do those things simply because you wanted to follow an unjust law then YOU are hardly worth of the name "Patrick...nobleman"

        February 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Reason

        Natural law has everything to do with the topic... it's knowing what is right and what is not independent of a governing body.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Natural Law is neither an absolute nor definable. Just like faiths and fingerprints, it will be different for different members of society.
        I think you let your desire to be at a certain moral position disable your ability to apply logical principles.

        February 20, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Johnny Mac

        Do you believe war is moral? Do you believe it is moral for taxpayers to underwrite wealthy like Mitt Romney who pays a lower tax rate than most taxpayers? Get off the moral argument. If you don't want to use contraceptives good for you and good luck because you will certainly need it. BTW you are 180 degrees from Reason.

        February 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        You are not paying for your choices by yourself if you have insurances....the rest of us are helping you pay for your choices with money from our insurance premiums.

        February 20, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Anne-Marie

        No Reason, you don't have to pay for those things, but in not paying for them you will probably pay a much higher price of large monetary penalties or jail time (i.e. loss of freedom that you keep talking about) or both. Seems the couple of cents you pay for contraceptive coverage is than the hardships you would bring on yourself and your family by not.

        February 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Reason

      I'm pretty sure any person in any culture in any time would know there is something wrong with cutting in line if you were there first waiting and someone cut you off. That's one example of natural law. But what makes you think there can only be one dimension to this world. That's a very close minded way of viewing things don't you think. Open your mind. Have you heard of Pascal's Wager. I think I'm in a better position than you on this one. Gotta run! Cheerio!

      February 20, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Ah, yes, Pascale's Wager: the philosophical proposition that you will suffer least if you are a Muslim.

        February 20, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • cactusren

        Clearly, you haven't travelled outside of the US much, Reason. Standing in line is not as common as you seem to think–in fact, as far as I can tell, it's mostly restricted to Great Britain and its former colonies. In other countries (e.g. China, which I've been to 3 times) you will sometimes find lines in major airports, but outside of that, you simply have to push your way towards the front. This isn't considered rude there, it's just how things are done. So before you start talking about what behaviors are universal and fall under "natural law", please learn a bit more about the world, and about other cultures.

        February 21, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Report abuse |
  83. Jamie

    Also, I'm writing under a pseudonym because I do not want this to be twisted as some sort of ploy for your business. I don't care who you see. Just get the help you deserve.

    February 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
  84. Jamie

    Ladies for CHOICE! : I'm not Catholic and I don't believe the pill is EVIL. But I do know it's harmful, and I am a female Ob/Gyn. It still baffles me that so many women think the pill is their ONLY CHOICE for treating irregular cycles, painful periods, endometriosis, PCOS and the like. In fact, I have NEVER found a time that I could not successfully treat a woman using NaPro Technology. I guarantee your MD does not know about it unless they have been specifically trained PAST the normal Ob/Gyn residency. I was developed out of Creighton Medical School and is used by many BOARD CERTIFIED Ob/Gyn's across the country. So check it out whether you agree with the article or now... so there's your free second opinion! =)

    February 20, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      There's a reason that "napro technology" isn't taught in medical school and residencies, because it's simply a commercialized and Vatican sanctioned repackaging of fertility awareness. All med students (myself included) and OB/GYN residents learn the details of the female reproductive cycles and the various screening procedures used to evaluate them. I should think this would be obvious to a "female OB/GYN."

      Your post makes outlandish, unsubstantiated claims and reads like an advertisement.

      February 20, 2012 at 8:45 pm | Report abuse |
  85. Macc

    These new christians crack me up! Where in the Bible does it say "check with your local laws"? If you believe what the Bible says follow your beliefs. Your morality is not dependant on local laws. Nor is it a mandate that everyone follow your rules.

    February 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
  86. Michelle

    Oh good grief. If YOU don't want to use contraceptive pills, then YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THEM. So don't restrict the rights of others to enjoy their se.xual freedom.

    Additionally, not all "birth control" prescriptions are written for the purpose of birth control. MANY women have been prescribed birth control as hormone therapy for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrom, for excessively heavy (and devastatingly painful) cycles, and for other real medical conditions. What about them, huh?

    Women have the right to control their own bodies, which means ACCESS to birth control should NOT be restricted. Then, it's up to the individual woman whether or not she CHOOSES to use birth control. Why is that so difficult for you?

    Seriously, this is why I'm glad I escaped the cult of Catholicism.

    February 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Quigleygal

      100% agree. I am a happily married woman in my early 30s who spent 10 years on the pill for treatment of dysmenorrhea, something Ms. Pokomy apparently fails to understand. Without the pill, I would in incapacitating pain that made me miss work, class and life in general. The pill enabled me to graduate from Ivy League bachelor's and master's program and successfully join the workforce. Ms. Pokoky, since you so criticize my choice to use the pill, would you mind telling me how I was supposed to justify and embrace monthly absences to my boss, colleagues and customers?

      Regarding the accusations that being on the pill makes us less feminine, do you have any research whatsoever to back up your naive viewpoint? It certainly didn't make me less feminine, but enabled me to survive and function in society without being forced to curl up in bed for a week each month. It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume that this is a bad thing.

      And for the record...I went off the pill in June and am now happily expecting our first child. 🙂

      February 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • Quigleygal

        100% agree. I am a happily married woman in my early 30s who spent 10 years on the pill for treatment of dysmenorrhea, something Ms. Pokomy apparently fails to understand. Without the pill, I would be in incapacitating pain that made me miss work, class and life in general. The pill enabled me to graduate from Ivy League bachelor's and master's programs and successfully join the workforce. Ms. Pokoky, since you so criticize my choice to use the pill, would you mind telling me how I was supposed to justify and embrace monthly absences to my boss, colleagues and customers?

        Regarding the accusations that being on the pill makes us less feminine, do you have any research whatsoever to back up your naive viewpoint? It certainly didn't make me less feminine, but enabled me to survive and function in society without being forced to curl up in bed for a week each month. It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume that this is a bad thing.

        And for the record...I went off the pill in June and am now happily expecting our first child. 🙂

        February 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jennifer

        I am so overjoyed to hear you are with child! I am sorry however, to hear that you may have aborted several children in your misguided 'treatments" by your uneducated doctors regarding proper course of action to correct your dysmenorrhea. I am sad for the fact that you were suffering in fetal position, with pain and heavy bleeding each month. It's hard to read this but oh so common, because there are specialized physicians in this area who actually determine the root cause of your irregularities or abnormalities. They are oriented to diagnosing and treating, as to restore or repair your fertility. What I am about to say, it 100% correct. There is NO REASON a woman 'needs' to take contraceptives. They mask serious problems, with out treating them, making you think you are better but in decades to come, sister, you will end up with worse problems. It is illusion when your "periods are shorter' and with "less bleeding." It would be beneficial for you to learn the Creighton Model System which gives you a day to day easy, assessment of your cycle. From that chart, much data is revealed about other areas of your health which can be corrected in a healthy way and not lead down the road to thyroid disease, diabetes, cancers of the reproductive organs, and influence fetal development.

        Your statement regarding pregnancy being unsafe for mom and fetus (child in the 'little one' -translated latin, phase of life): Irrational and untrue. This topic is heated because well, most other things we 'fight for' don't have to really make us 'work,' control ourselves, use reason over desire. However, as a service to your future children, especially any girls you may have, it is wise that you arm yourself with medical facts, and TRULY responsible parenthood, which is done through the empowerment you have as parents to space children or limit family size, from a natural perspective that a) keeps intercourse with your husband, dignified and with integrity; b) doesn't reduce you to a pleasure object, available for his use on demand (you may be happy, but to have deep joy with your spouse, it can never go deep if you have chemical, material or surgical barriers between yourselves) and c) identify and treat menstrual problems (which can usually be treated by correcting nutrition, exercise, habits..not to say surgery is never necessary).

        February 20, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • Adam

        @Jennifer: your assertion, "that you may have aborted several children in your misguided 'treatments'" clearly demonstrates your complete and total lack of understanding of the female menstrual cycle, fertilization, and how oral contraceptives work.

        Oral contraceptives prevent ovulation, no ovulation means no fertilization, no fertilization means no embryo, and therefor no "abortions." If you're going to have such strong opinions on a subject it would really benefit you to understand what it is youre talking about.

        February 20, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • musings

        There's this rumor being whispered about the pill killing "babies" who cannot implant in a uterus. It has the problem that it sees the uterus and its lining as separate from the egg producing ovary, when the two are part of the same system that signals using hormones. No egg, no uterine lining. That's how it works.

        March 1, 2012 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
  87. KCRic

    Pokorny, taking birth control denigrates women? The fact that my wife takes it makes her less of a woman huh? That seems to be the message you're trying to convey. Any woman taking it is allowing herself to become a stain on the cotton lining of panties. Get a clue. You're afforded your opinion but to belittle others with it is encroaching on their freedoms. My wife suffers from horrible pains without contraceptives not to mention acne. You'd rather her suffer through debilitating pain and acne because why? It's her choice as stated before. Nobody is forcing the pill down you or any other womans throat. It merely being made available to all those who wish to utilize it. Only a weak person would be offended by that. Only a shallow, uneducated person would attempt to group all women together and say they are less of a woman for choosing to take part. I'm not pointing fingers but I can provide numerous instances that prove who is 'more of a woman'. Let's just say you aren't at the top of that list by a long shot.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • JimBeam

      Only a shallow, uneducated person would miss the line about women using contraceptives for medical purposes and that the Catholic Church has no problem with this.

      I guess reading comprehension must not be your strong suit.

      February 29, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Report abuse |
  88. Steve

    You don't want contraception to be available? And you are definitely against abortions. Great! What other of your rights can I take away? I've got my eyes on working outside the home and driving.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • dan

      Work for someone who else than. The church has not changed its positionj. They have not hidden their beleifs. YOU chose to work for them, YOU chose to work under their beleifs.

      YOU ARE THE FOOL.

      February 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
  89. devon

    article translation = blah blah blah, hippie nonsense, blah blah blah

    February 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
  90. stymied

    When I was told at age 24 that another pregnancy might kill me or put me into a vegetated state, my priest advised me to do whatever was necessary to save my life & to see that I was there to raise the 2 children I already had. He further advised me to tell no one outside the confessional about it because some would consider it a sin. He further pointed out the Church's stance on ectopic pregnancies. Even though a pregnancy within the Fallopians tubes cannot produce a viable fetus, the Church does not allow that pregnancy to be terminated before that fetus has torn throught the tube causes a miscarriage of the fetus and possible infection, infertility, and/or death of the mother. Explain to me again how important women are to Church, because I am just no longer buying it.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Philly

      If your priest told you that, he spoke untruth. The Church does in fact allow the removal of the fetus in case of an ectopic pregnancy. It makes a distinction, though, that it does not involve the direct killing of the fetus and that if not removed, the mother's death is guaranteed as well, thus it is allowed.

      February 20, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dorothy Wagar

        Oh how very generous of Mother Church to allow the mother to be saved if she is otherwise facing certain death and if the fetus is not directly killed. This kind of thinking is straight out of the middle ages!

        When I was growing up in Indiana, I remember my father (an ultra-conservative surgeon) driving twice a day 20 miles to and from a nearby small town with a community-owned hospital to avoid having to put his female patients with female problems in the only local hospital which was Catholic and was run by nuns. They would supervise every female operation (like a hysterectomy) to make certain nothing was removed that was not diseased. And, of course, he was not allowed to take the life of a child to spare the mother's. That is still true at Catholic hospitals I am told. It doesn't matter if she will leave a grieving husband and six children, God must make the choice. This is a religion that hates women!

        February 21, 2012 at 2:10 am | Report abuse |
  91. jojo

    What is the adoption rate for Catholics? Do they adopt more children than other denominations?

    February 20, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
  92. Texas Bubba

    At least half of the women I know take contraceptives to regulate their menstrual cycles, and believe me – a regulated menstrual cycle makes for a happy woman, and a happy woman is the BEST kind of woman to have around!

    February 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mychele

      Amen, Bubba! As much as NLP might do for a couple planning and spacing births, it does nothing for a woman who is doing field biology or traveling through a jungle or a 3rd world country where the loo is few and far between and where you'd better be hauling lots of your own feminine products. Of course, some women here on these threads are pampered and never set foot outside their own homes, hometowns, or Macy's and have little concept for other situations (or other religious perspectives) and are busy trying to fit the rest of us shapes into one set hole.
      I guess this woman's point is that more people should know of her NLP and try it, and I have no problem with that, but the implicit argument she makes is that we should ALL conform to her standard, we should have the same lifestyle, and that pharmaceutical contraception should not be available to anyone who wishes it, and she and her lot shouldn't have to pay for others lifestyle choices. To which I would say, I shouldn't have to pay thru my taxes for people's kids to eat junk, get sick and head to the ER or for overweight people to get their many pharmas either, but I do, and am not about to get all holy roller about it, but perhaps we should if the pulpit soap box is going to be trotted out this election season.

      February 22, 2012 at 11:05 am | Report abuse |
  93. Adam

    Ms. Pokorny, while you are welcome to your opinions you should realize that this particular perspective fails the logic test several times over and is based on false premises and assumptions. No one, as you claim, advocates that ["women] need contraception." The point is that women have a right to have ACCESS to contraception, so that women just like you can decide for themselves what's best for their reproductive health and priorities.

    I also find it ironic that you denigrate the concept of contraception while claiming to to be a "natural family planning" instructor. You do realize that so-called "natural family planning" is a form of contraception, right?

    The primary difference between you and those with whom you disagree is that those of us who support women's access to contraception support and defend your right to your own opinion regarding your fertility and reproductive choices, while you seem to believe that your opinion should take legal and policy precedence over those same rights for the majority of women who disagree with you.

    On a final note, I am also Catholic and would like to point out that, regarding this issue, you do not in fact stand with your fellow Catholics, but rather with the far more limited Catholic upper hierarchy. According to numerous public opinion polls the Catholic community (including much of the clergy) supports the right of individuals to make their own decisions regarding the use of contraception, it's primarily the out of touch old male bishops that seem to share your opinion.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kate

      Thank you Adam. Well said

      February 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • WDinDallas

      Kate and Adam....you know the rules. Don't like it, become Baptist...but you will have to stop drinking.

      February 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Erica

      I find Ms. Pokorny to be logical in her arguments, her kind of thinking is rare and true and deserves a good hard look:
      Certainly women have a right to access conctraception if they so choose, nowadays a woman is able to walk into practically any clinic and receive FREE contraception, so there is no need for a mandate that violates the consciences of Catholics and other morally sound people to have their tax dollars go towards providing this for others. Religious freedom goes both ways: some ascribe to God of the universe, others to themselves as their own god so in the same way those responding so angrily to this article may not want "religious principles" shoved down their throats, nor do we wish to have secular thinking and mandates shoved down ours.

      I would encourage you to research the word "contraception", in essence it is referring to the act of intercourse being blocked by an outside force (i.e. pill, condom) from the conception that would naturally take place (about 3 days out of the month). Nothing about abstaining from intercourse for a few days is contraceptive in nature because intercourse is not taking place. We all do it the majority of every day: we contain ourselves at work and in public places and when we're out with our friends at a restaurant- we're not having intercourse. By using NFP and being aware of when those days are and avoiding intercourse at those times just means shuffling those times around and exercising some restraint during those times. More natural and enticing than taking a pill full of chemicals designed to alter what is working perfectly normally.

      Unfortunately the issue here is that the "majority of Catholics" you cite seem to think that God should bend to our wants and needs instead of rising to His standards. God created us and the things He asks of us are not obnoxious- they help us live according to how we were created, just like using the correct gas in a car and getting regular tune-ups keeps a car running well. I know many who claim to be Catholic or Christian who are not objectively either, because there are certain requirements that they don't meet. For example: a Christian is one who believes in Christ and in His teachings...many like to choose the teachings they like and reject those they don't. Following Christ isn't easy, but is rewarding now and eternally. And the clergy and bishops you claim support the right of women to choose their actions- sure they do, people have free will, the clergy's jobs are to present the truth and let people make their choices. Public opinion polls mean nothing to the Catholic church on matters of faith and morals because they are unable to be changed: because God is unable to be changed. Nobody's saying you can't choose, those of us opposed to this ridiculous mandate are saying that the government is not letting US choose to live according to our consciences and CHOOSE not to have our tax dollars go towards something we oppose.

      February 20, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        "Certainly women have a right to access conctraception if they so choose, nowadays a woman is able to walk into practically any clinic and receive FREE contraception, so there is no need for a mandate that violates the consciences of Catholics and other morally sound people to have their tax dollars go towards providing this for others."

        This is an unsubstantiated argument. How does the fact that the service CAN be available and free support not ensuring equal rights of availability for all people? Freedom of Religion stops when different persons are treated differently because of those beliefs. You can believe it, but you cannot force your beliefs on others, whatever the method. If your beliefs conflict with fair and equitable business in the United States, you should stay out of business.

        February 20, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • Adam

        Contraception: (Sociology) the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means. Artificial methods in common use include preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum (using condoms, diaphragms, etc.), inhibiting ovulation (using oral contraceptive pills), preventing implantation (using intrauterine devices), killing the sperm (using spermicides), and preventing the sperm from entering the seminal fluid (by vasectomy). Natural methods include the rhythm method and coitus interruptus. Compare birth control, family planning

        February 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Adam

        Erica, please show me where in the Bible, old or new testament, there is any mention of contraception. On what biblical passages are you basing your interpretation of God's will? Or are you just parroting the dogmatic mantra you've heard from others, with out any understanding of what it's based on?

        The truth is that the positions of the Catholic Church on both birth control and abortion (ironically the few passages in the Bible that could be interpreted to apply to abortion do not oppose the practice) are not based on the teachings of Jesus or the old testament, but rather on the philosophical interpretations of archaic canon.

        February 20, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Michele

        Erica, There are many women who need birth control pills for reasons other than contraception. Still other women have been told it would be dangerous to their health of lives to get pregnant again. For me, a Christian woman, it's both. I have periods so heavy and debilitating that I spend, literally, hours on the toilet, bleeding heavily and in terrible pain, and another 1 1/2 days having to change my sanitary protection every hour or more frequently. And I had pre-eclampsia so bad in both my pregnancies–had an emergency C-section while going into eclamptic shock for the second one–that I was told never to get pregnant again unless I wanted to risk death (mine and the baby's). I would dearly have loved to have a third child, but I felt God was telling me it wasn't meant to be–and indeed, there were other responsibilities that came my way instead.
        My health insurance should cover my contraception. And everyone else's too. I don't think the insurance company or a human resource director or someone else's religious beliefs should come between decision the woman makes with her husband, her doctor–and God.

        February 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      Adam thanks for your input greatly said.

      February 22, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
  94. Sarah

    “Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health.”

    Exactly. No one is forcing any woman to TAKE the contraceptives. They are only being made available to those who WISH to take them. The individual WOMAN is in control, as it should be.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
  95. Steve

    There are lots of things I wish I didn't have to support via taxes because I don't agree with them morally (war, torture, corporate welfare, etc) – but no one asked me. Voters don't normally get to choose. You should be thrilled the president listened to your side and compromised.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
  96. Phil in Oregon

    Girls who are separated from their fathers reach puberty with a huge void that needs to be filled. Physically they mature faster in order to get a mate to replace the missing man in their life. Teachers can tell them to have self-esteem til they're blue in the face, but there is no replacing a father's role in his daughter's life.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
  97. samantha

    When women knowingly carry a defective gene or have a disease like diabetes, get pregnant, the costs of taking care of their child often becomes enormous and all of us who have insurance pay for the costs of care. Yet we as a society do not demand that these women NOT get pregnant. Obese women who get pregnant are high risk for their own health problems as it is for the fetus they carry....yet we do not demand as a society that obese women lose weight before they get pregnant and we do not demand that they keep their weight healthy during their pregnancy. We instead help pay for their care with our taxes and our insurance premiums. Pregnancy is a health risk for every pregnant woman and that health risk can and frequently does become a health problem/disease for the mom and/or the child....sometimes the pregnant woman knows the risks and sometimes she faces them for the first time during her pregnancy. The fact is....pregnancy IS a health risk for every woman and every fetus.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • samantha

      Other health problems created during pregnancy...High blood pressure, heart disease, DVTs (deep vein thrombosis), stroke, premature birth, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, excessive bleeding, gestational diabetes, ruptured uterus, posterior position of the fetus, breech positioning of the fetus (often leading to C-section), drug addicted baby, fetal alcohol syndrome, Baby with STD or anomalies because of STD......and the list goes on.

      February 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jane

        I have to hope you only consider yourself to have found great a hypothetical way to make your point to Catholics, and don't believe that pregnancy is a health risk any more than being alive is. One can only suspect that you take such deep refuge in your argument because you plan never to become pregnant (which, by the way, only 100% abstinence for every day of the rest of your life will prevent). Do you hold your breath while walking in the city so as to avoid breathing in pollutants that are demonstrated "health risks"? Is every square inch of your body covered with sunscreen 24-7 so as to avoid developing skin cancer? If your argument is that everyone who pays for insurance essentially pays for everyone else's choices and you don't desire to do so, opt out, find a job that permits you to opt out, etc.

        February 20, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Wrong on a lot of your points. I had a ruptured ovarian cyct at 21, lost the first ovary. Went on BCp for a few years cause i had multiple cysts on the remaining ovary. Went off the pill and developed ovarian cysts again....had a hysterectomy. I was much more femine post hysterectomy....and I was 100% unable to have children. I pointed out the possible problems with pregnancy because someone ...or more than someone posted about pregnancy being healthy. i also posted a study done on 3400 women....30% had at least one complication during their pregnancy. I wasn't making my point to "catholics".....but to all who want to get pregnant. None of this is my "hypothetical" way of justifying anything....except that for those of us who can't get pregnant and for those of us who do not want to get pregnant, but still have to allocate some of our insurance premiums AND our taxes to those who want to get pregnant or plain just do not belive in contraception is not fair to us. But we still have to do it. The insurance premiums for those who want to get pregnant would be a heck of a lot higher for them if people like me did not share the costs.

        February 20, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        For the record jane, I had ovarian cysts since I was a teenager....long before i began having s_x. I loved my hystectomy. I was was femine, I was finally free of pain and I was finally clean......most of all I was free!!

        February 20, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • JeramieH

      > defective gene

      Who decides which ones are labelled as defective?

      February 27, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        A defective gene is a gene that gives the fetus a high risk of an anomalie that could be life threatening or in a condition of severe brain damage or other physical anomalies resulting in pain for the baby and extra ordinary challenges. It isn't "who" decides....it is the gene that decides....or a known condition like diabetes. Why would anyone be selfish enough to knowingly get pregnant with any of these conditions and put their fetus at risk? That is the same as child endangerment! A feloney!!

        February 27, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • SFC Mike

        like diabetes? That's a pretty ridiculously broad notion of "defective." I'm a type II diabetic from a family where both parents and all their siblings were diabetic. Diabetes didn't stop me from serving 22 years in the US Army as a Ranger and paratrooper, and it hasn't stopped me from anything else. Diabetes is an entirely manageable condition and its inclusion in this type of discussion discredits what would otherwise be a valid discussion over whether to bring to term a fetus which is clearly and unequivocally diagnosed with debilitating abnormalities or other medical conditions.

        February 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Often diabetes is "gene" related. The problem isn't just the defective gene, it is how women with diabetes take care of themselves during pregnancy. Sometimes strict diet alone is enough for a diabetic woman to have a healthy baby. However, there is a high risk of birth defects.....read up on it. I am presuming since "Mike" is the name you are using, you are male and you are fortunate enough not to be a brittle diabetic. I don't know how strict you are with diet, so I am speaking in a general sense. The longer a person has diabetes, the greater the chances for kidney failure, nerve damage, cardiac disease, eye problems, etc. Younger people believe they are doing okay even if they do not eat a proper diet. Childhood diabetes often leads to problems by the time the person is in their 20s and 30s. A woman who is a diabetic before pregnancy or developes diabetes during pregnancy is automatically at risk for complications as is her fetus. If she is overweight and/or does not keep to a strict diet, she becomes a higher risk factor for herself and her fetus. Since you are a male, you'll not face these risks. What you can do now, has nothing to do with a woman carrying a fetus. What you can do now is not indicative of how you will be doing in a few short years. Diabetes is not "a pretty ridculous broad notion of "defective"". In a woman who is thinking of getting pregnant or is pregnant....diabetes is a very specific notion of "defective".

        February 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • samantha

        Also Mike....It was never a question whether a woman should decide to "bring to term" a fetus if she has diabetes. It comes down to wheter she should get pregnant or not. That question should be based on the health of each individual diabetic woman.....Is she a healthy diabetic? If she is overweight before pregnancy, is she willing to lose her excess weight in a healthy manner? Can she eat a healthy diet and maintain a healthy weight during pregnancy? Thing is, to NOT carry her fetus to term may NOT be her choice. The fetus/baby may have to be delievered early to save mom's life andor the life of her baby. This early delivery all too often can cause problems the baby will have to suffer and deal with. Type 2 diabetes IS contollable and women can control it. If a woman is not prepared to do so, she should NOT get pregnant. Type 1 diabetes is not contollable, but if a woman chooses to get pregnant, she should know her disease and all the problems she and her fetus may encounter......My belief is that all too often the decision to get pregnant is more often selfish when a woman knowingly gets pregnant, when she is high risk and puts her fetus at high risk.

        February 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • CMoses

        Samantha, the choice is either giving them a hard life or not giving them a life at all. As the father of a child with Down syndrome, I can tell you that "defective" life is wonderful; much more wonderful than no life. Especially for her.

        February 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5