Help Keep the
"Conservative News and Views"
on FR coming by "Clicking Here"!!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/20/2011 4:11:04 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 20, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After the Institute of Medicine (IOM) this week publicly backed government-mandated birth control coverage, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is standing in the breach against what would prove a massive victory for abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
The birth control question has sparked a rare spectacle as the two most influential lobbies on sexual health forcefully butt heads over an issue many other interest groups consider secondary.
Planned Parenthood immediately cheered the IOM report Tuesday, the result of a study commissioned by U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and a critical leg-up for the abortion giant’s campaign.
“We’re so close to a monumental victory that will change the lives of millions of women,” wrote Planned Parenthood on Facebook, where the group simultaneously posted a new video of “Pillamina,” the foam-flanked mascot of the free birth control campaign.
The report recommended that artificial birth control, including the abortifacient morning-after pill and “ella” drug, would be counted as an essential “preventive service” that health insurers would be forced to completely cover under the new federal health care law.
Such a mandate would likely provide a major funding boost to Planned Parenthood, one of the nation’s leading birth control providers, especially as the group struggles against numerous state-level defunding efforts this year.
“Half of all pregnancies that happen in the U.S. every year are unintended, and if we could prevent an epidemic of this proportion, that should be justification enough that contraception is preventive care,” said Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for medical services in a report on NPR’s health blog.
However, a statement from a leader in the U.S. bishops’ conference strongly challenged Planned Parenthood and the IOM report on the same day, criticizing the notion that sexual activity’s normal result is a malady in need of cure.
“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Tuesday.
Like other conservative leaders, the USCCB pro-life chairman noted that the mandate would violate the conscience rights of Americans morally opposed to birth control, and objected to coverage of “emergency contraception” such as ella, a chemical functionally identical to the abortion drug RU-486.
But the cardinal’s challenge did not stop there: DiNardo noted that the IOM report was so radical as to have indicated interest in recommending full abortion coverage as well. The report stated that, “despite the health and well-being benefits to some women,” abortion was outside of the project’s scope given federal legal restrictions.
“But most Americans surely see that abortion is not healthy or therapeutic for unborn children, and has physical and mental health risks for women which can be extremely serious,” wrote the cardinal, who noted the celebration of Planned Parenthood, “the single largest abortion provider in the United States,” over the report.
“I can only conclude that there is an ideology at work in these recommendations that goes beyond any objective assessment of the health needs of women and children,” he said.
Perfectly stated!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I think PP is worried that the States who are blocking their Medicaid funding will be successful. If they can get birth control covered under Medicaid, then they will be able to clamour that they need the Medicaid funding for handing out some condoms and morning after pills. Of course, they would comingle that money like usual, and use it to subsidize abortions.
Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is a stage of life which creates new life. 0bama’s attitude that people are punished with a baby is all to prevalent.
Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is a stage of life which creates new life. 0bama’s attitude that people are punished with a baby is all too prevalent.
Sorry, but I’d much rather pay for BCPs than abortions or welfare babies.
Pregnancy IS a pathological condition, if society at large has to pay for the results long-term.
This is a false dichotomy (or whatever the word is for erroneously limiting options to three, instead of two). It is not either/or (as I'm sure you know, since you wouldn't be a FReeper if you were a dimwit). The general public need not pay for contraceptives, abortions, OR the rearing of children, unless they allow their elected representatives to force them to do so.
Here's my plan: private pay or private charity for everything to do with people's personal lives: housing, medical care, education, food, clothing, utilities, gas, blah blah blah.
BTTT on that headline!!
Both of your choices kill a baby.
Why pay for any of it?
Pregnancy IS a pathological condition, if society at large has to pay for the results long-term.
Perhaps you could be more specific.
How exactly do you consider pregnancy to be a "pathological condition"? Do you think it's a disease?
Do you support some form of eugenics program that keeps certain people from having babies?
ABSOLUTELY!!! It's the only sane, rational and honorable way. And with the hugely reduced taxes, people could afford to give more to charities of their choice.
bump
BCPs are abortifacients. So, by paying for them, you ARE paying for abortions.
It’s the responsibility of the parents to raise the child, not have welfare support it.
Cut welfare now. Hunger is a great motivator to work.
I keep telling my son that, but he just rolls his eyes ;-).
Do you support some form of eugenics program that keeps certain people from having babies? >>>
Unfortunately, many republicans think that way. It’s usually the so-call fiscally conservatives/social liberals who love killing “black babies who will be a product of the welfare system and eventually go on welfare themselves when they get older” as they say. These republicans fail to understand that most of these killed babies would have grown up and worked and spent their own money on consumables, contributed to the economy and would have contributed to the social security system.
Exactly!
MURDERING 53 MILLION BABIES destroyed our economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.