Catholic universities required to provide birth control? (merged)

#52
#52
GAVol said:
Surely there's going to be some sort of compromise here. This is politically one of the dumbest moves imaginable.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine there won't be some sort of change made. The Obama camp knows they will need a significant portion of the Catholic vote.

Gramps said:
I heard on one of the news shows the morning after pill would have to be provided.
Click to expand...
Any legal, clinical or medical definition of the morning after pill that I'm aware of classify it as a contraception. For the purpose of this issue, though, it wouldn't be any different than birth control pills.
 
#53
#53
milohimself said:
Any legal, clinical or medical definition of the morning after pill that I'm aware of classify it as a contraception. For the purpose of this issue, though, it wouldn't be any different
than birth control pills.
Click to expand...

That is the way I understand it and that makes this a big issue. To many Social Conservatives, the morning after pill is the abortion pill.
 
#54
#54
Gramps said:
That is the way I understand it and that makes this a big issue. To many Social Conservatives, the morning after pill is the abortion pill.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, there's no real physiological basis for that. It's a contraceptive. But, as I mentioned, even condoms are off-limits for people of stricter Catholic persuasions.
 
#55
#55
milohimself said:
As far as I'm aware, there's no real physiological basis for that. It's a contraceptive. But, as I mentioned, even condoms are off-limits for people of stricter Catholic persuasions.
Click to expand...

out of my area of expertise but doesn't it work after an egg has been fertilized by preventing it from attaching to the uterus? (maybe I'm imagining that). If so, it is certainly different than something that prevents fertilization.

EDIT: If by morning after they mean emergency contraceptive then it is a contraceptive. If they mean RU486 which is also used as an emergency contraceptive then it is abortive via a mechanism like I described.
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
The primary effect is to prevent ovulation and fertilization to begin with. The last part, if the first two fail, is to prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus by essentially thinning the uterine lining, but a fertilized egg by itself has no potential for life until that attachment is made. Abortion is specifically defined as deliberate termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy does not occur until a fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

Somebody here a while back made a good analogy that went something like "If a sperm and an egg constitute pregnancy, does phosphorus and wood constitute fire?"

I probably butchered that quote but you get the idea.
 
#57
#57
milohimself said:
The primary effect is to prevent ovulation and fertilization to begin with. The last part, if the first two fail, is to prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus by essentially thinning the uterine lining, but a fertilized egg by itself has no potential for life until that attachment is made. Abortion is specifically defined as deliberate termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy does not occur until a fertilized egg attaches to the uterus.

Somebody here a while back made a good analogy that went something like "If a sperm and an egg constitute pregnancy, does phosphorus and wood constitute fire?"

I probably butchered that quote but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the "morning after pill" is RU486.

Analogy aside, I can see why some people would have a problem with an abortive regardless of how early (primary use of RU486) vs a contraceptive that prevents fertilization by any number of mechanisms.

Some of what I quickly searched indicated morning after pills are NOT RU486 but are truly contraceptive. I just don't know what ACA is requiring.
 
#58
#58
volinbham said:
I don't know if the "morning after pill" is RU486.

Analogy aside, I can see why some people would have a problem with an abortive regardless of how early (primary use of RU486) vs a contraceptive that prevents fertilization by any number of mechanisms.

Some of what I quickly searched indicated morning after pills are NOT RU486 but are truly contraceptive. I just don't know what ACA is requiring.
Click to expand...

Didn't see the edit at first, Plan B One Step and the like aren't in the same category as RU486 which is an abortifacient, meaning abortion-inducing. Morning After Pills are basically highly concentrated doses of some hormone (I forget which) and fundamentally different. Those are part of ACA. RU486 is not.
 
#59
#59
milohimself said:
Didn't see the edit at first, Plan B One Step and the like aren't in the same category as RU486 which is an abortifacient, meaning abortion-inducing. Morning After Pills are basically highly concentrated doses of some hormone (I forget which). Those are part of ACA. RU486 is not.
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#62
#62
I know there was a court case some time ago where a church wanted to force its congregation to take Peyote, which is a controlled substance, and the gov't said they couldn't do that. I've heard that they are trying to claim precedent for this issue.
I don't see it as the same thing, at all. Restricting a church from taking an illegal substance, and forcing them to provide something they deem immoral are two very different avenues.
The libs would be all up in arms if the gov't wanted to require a Hindu organization to serve beef.

edit: Milo, just now seeing your post with the precedent.
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
I heard over and over again this morning that the administration is signalling that it is very much willing to compromise on this, so expect that to happen.
 
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
I heard over and over again this morning that the administration is signalling that it is very much willing to compromise on this, so expect that to happen.
Click to expand...


This was a bad political move by the White House.

They need to compromise on this.
 
#66
#66
Is Santorum Catholic? His recent surge could be tied to this issue and extra incentive for Team Obama to back off this move.
 
#68
#68
volinbham said:
Is Santorum Catholic? His recent surge could be tied to this issue and extra incentive for Team Obama to back off this move.
Click to expand...

He calls himself Catholic, though he comes across as more of an evangelical. I read a Catholic article on how Santorum isn't very consistent with some Catholic stances. That may just be the fact that he's running for public office, and you can't always have it both ways.
 
#69
#69
volinbham said:
Is Santorum Catholic? His recent surge could be tied to this issue and extra incentive for Team Obama to back off this move.
Click to expand...

He is Roman Catholic.

Santorum sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) with John Kerry

He added a provision to the 2001 No Child Left Behind bill that would require the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution. His Amendment was taken out before final passage.
 
#70
#70
Gramps said:
He is Roman Catholic.

Santorum sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) with John Kerry

He added a provision to the 2001 No Child Left Behind bill that would require the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution. His Amendment was taken out before final passage.
Click to expand...

I thought he wanted evolution completely taken out. The catholic church's stance is that God created evolution.
 
Last edited:
#71
#71
Panthro said:
I thought he wanted evolution completely taken out. The catholic churches stance is that God created evolution.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I've always wondered why the notion of a creator and evolution were mutually exclusive in people's minds. Why couldn't God have theoretically used evolution to create man?
 
#72
#72
nbakerld said:
I didn't know that. I've always wondered why the notion of a creator and evolution were mutually exclusive in people's minds. Why couldn't God have theoretically used evolution to create man?
Click to expand...

that's fine but it shouldn't be taught as "science"
 
#74
#74
the idea that earth is 6000 years old is insulting to me. I'm not closed to everything spiritual - but come on.
 
#75
#75
Gramps said:
This was a bad political move by the White House.

They need to compromise on this.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this, but the provision was basically set up to mirror the existing language in over half the states, and as far as I'm aware there have been no quibbles with it until it became part of Obamacare, except in New York where the SCOTUS sided with the state.

The White House is going to cave on it because they don't have any choice politically, but I'm curious as to why it wasn't a big deal until it became part of the ACA.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top