D. Rines: Birth control isn't the issue

I think that Stephen Carnahan (Feb. 22) completely misses the point about the birth control controversy.

The issue is not about birth control at all; it is whether the federal government can force a church to act against its beliefs — in this case, forcing Catholic organizations (through mandatory insurance) to supply not only birth control, but also the morning after pill (which causes abortions) to their female employees.

Both contraception and abortion are against Catholic doctrine.

The Catholics, and other Christians who are taking a stand against this Barack Obama administration mandate, are doing so to defend First Amendment rights for all of us, including liberal churches such as Carnahan's.

If the state can dictate how a church runs its business, then none of our rights will be safe.

Diane Rines, Greene

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



CRYSTAL WARD's picture


Not all christian religions are opposed to birth control and not all are opposed to the new health care law. And many of the christians who belong to churches who are opposed do not follow the teachings of the church. About 90% of catholic women use birth control
do you really believe they are going to vote to hurt themselves , their daughters and grand daughters? Starting a Moral war with women who are over 50% of the population may not be a good idea. Just how do you make these two moral issues work? 1.church says it members can not do something 2. members of church refuse to follow church teaching
and do it anyway. Now what does the church do to all the people who do not obey? Isn't the church the people?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

This issue has more to do with freedom than religion.

This is really not a religious issue; it is a general issue of freedom.

Prior to the Obama mandate, some religious organizations provided contraceptives as part of their health care, and some did not. Those organizations more aligned with their principles perhaps chose not to provide contraction. Freedom allows for diversity of beliefs and choices, and the world just chugged along fine prior to the mandate. If 90% of catholic women use birth control prior to the Obama mandate indicates the world was not falling apart. Moreover, your statistic is a testament that perhaps the mandate was not necessary in the first place.

What the Obama mandate does however is to eliminate the freedom of an organization to choose what set of values it supports or chooses not to support. Freedom of choice and diversity can act as a pressure release value for a society. We are not all made the same; we have different values, wants and desires.
Ignoring these differences and forcing the same value set on all of us just serves promote disharmony in a society.

The bigger issue here is really freedom. You may not feel you lost any freedom over this issue, but what goes around comes around; tomorrow, you may lose a freedom that you value.

 's picture

It's about a bunch of

It's about a bunch of self-absorbed anti-religion nuts desperate to feel important in their mediocrity by imposing their will on the church using the power of the state.

This exemption that Wrenn's hyperventilating about is just an unconstitutional mandate shifted from the church to insurance companies. It forces them to cover contraception services free of charge, meaning customers (the church) will still pay via higher premiums.

It's all about control, and the state is using this minor issue as pure misdirection. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

While these people feel

While these people feel empowered forcing there will on others, we’ll see how their tune changes when the Obama administration starts mandating their dietary and exercise practices.

In the words of William Wallace --- Freedom!

 's picture

you're right

You're absolutely right, it's not about birth control. It's all about a bunch of doughy old white men and church sanctioned pedophile apologists in funny hats trying to impose their "morality" in the most intrusive manner imaginable - by interfering in the very private relationship of a woman and her medical care provider.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Mark, Where was your outrage

Where was your outrage one day before the Obama mandate, one year before the Obama mandate, one decade before the Obama mandate?

One day plus after the Obama mandate you claim “the church is interfering in a very private relationship…”
How did the world survive before the mandate? I’ll tell you how it survived. These religious based or organizations provided a healthcare package to a potential employee, the employee accepted it as a condition of employment or they walked. The employer has rights too. The employer has the right to offer a healthcare package they see fit, they can afford, or none at all, just like they have for over 5 decades. Is not the government interfering in a very private matter – one’s business?

Where does all the righteous indignation come from after the Obama mandate when it was absent prior to the mandate? Well, it is an election year and the Democrats need a social issue.

Joe Morin's picture

Exactly right Mark

The narrative that the Democrats are pitching is that of a Republican party alligned with Christians to deprive women of birth control.This is an attempt to capture more of the female vote. It may backfire on them. They may lose the Catholic vote which represent approximately 25% percent of the electorate. In 2008 Obama received 53% percent of the catholic vote. The last thing this administration needs is a unified cause for all denominations to move against... Christians are America's original community organizers.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Funny that one day before the

Funny that one day before the Obama mandate no one uttered a word about the attempt to deprive women of birth control. That has all changed one day after the mandate when in reality little has change in a day.

Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye, like purposely dividing Obama’s opposition.

 's picture

no worries

"Nearly two-thirds of Americans favor President Barack Obama's policy requiring birth control coverage for female employees, including clear majorities of Roman Catholic, Protestant evangelical and independent voters, a poll showed on Thursday." http://goo.gl/XcO9C

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dan, If I’m giving away $100


If I’m giving away $100 bills, perhaps I can get 75% support for that practice. Isn’t it popular to get free stuff?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Where'd you get that

Where'd you get that statistic from; Jon Stewart or Bill Maher?

Joe Morin's picture

The trick is the question

I took a poll and asked. Who wants to have world peace? 100% were in favor of world peace. Then when I continued to explain that world peace would be achieved by a world ruled under one govt. the results were 0%.
Then I asked. Who is in favor of world hunger? 100% again! Then when I explained that we would have cut the global population in half and fall under global socialism the results were 0%. When I ask. Who wants birth control & contraception offered by their insurance provider. The answer is what you stated. If I were to ask. A. Do you feel that birth control, contraception & abortion should be paid for through a nationalized healthcare program that is subsidized with your tax dollars. You would get a different response. Or perhaps I would ask, Who wants the federal govt. to force religious organizations to pay for birth control despite their beliefs in violation of the 1st ammendment. You would get a different response.

Joe Morin's picture


It's about the precedent of disregarding the constitution. The president could make this legal by creating a new ammendment to nullify parts of the first ammendment. Mark, buy your own condoms and stop trying to apply your sense of morality to the very private relationship between the faithful and their church and creator. They haven't banned contraceptive but refuse to pay for it. If you expect the church to endorse abortion, it won't happen. Thats how they view the day-after pill.

 's picture

very wrong

Churches are specifically exempted from paying for contraception. And the first amendment works both ways - "the faithful and their church and creator" have no constitutional right to impose their special brand of "morality" on those who do not share their beliefs.

Joe Morin's picture


Specifically exempted on basis of religious beliefs. If you turn away from your disdain for religion and look at the issue from a logical constitutional argument you will see that the mandate is illegal. P.S. people have a choice to where they work Wrenn. Put your platitudes aside with your tissue box and realize that we're talking about condoms & the pill. They are in no way outlawing contraception. They are simply refusing to pay for it on the basis of religious freedom as outlined in the first ammendment. Pretty cut and dry.

 's picture

you're right!

You are absolutely right! "They are simply refusing to pay for it on the basis of religious freedom as outlined in the first ammendment." And they are specifically exempted from paying for it! And your "logical constitutional argument" is an hilarious farce since 28 states already require those who cover other prescription drugs to also cover contraceptives. Pretty cut and dry...

Joe Morin's picture


Your lack of logic is hilarious. Those are individual states that if contested should be settled on a state level. There are 23 that don't. While the Fed making a national mandate is a horse of a different color. Lets agree that I'll be a non-religious person who respects the 1st ammendment not because it has anything to do with religion but doesn't like Washington back dooring the constitution. And you can be ethno-centric and try to characterize the issue like a lifetime movie. Abstinence is a choice but if you just have to have rampant sex spend the few dollars on some condoms and protect yourself.

 's picture


"Those are individual states that if contested should be settled on a state level." What, are they exempt from the constitution? States can force unconstitutional mandates, and that's constitutional, but when the feds exempt religious organizations from paying for contraceptives, that's unconstitutional? And why don't you just go ahead and say it? "just have to have rampant sex" is all about the sluts, right?

Joe Morin's picture

You're very assumptive

Noooo.... The issues should go up to the state supreme court if there is a party with a grievance, then all the way to the U.S. Supreme court, which I think this issue may be headed there. If your hobby is mountain biking then you buy your helmet without the help of insurance providers. If your hobby is having sex with people you don't intend raising children with then you buy some condoms!!! But ONLY if you work at a religious organization that doesn't provide it. WHICH IS ONE"S CHOICE. Personally I wish more peole would use birth control and stop having children they can't support! I would take a condom over an abortion or adoption any day!!!!!!!!! But it is not about what I want. It is about the guidelines we have set as a country to protect different parts of our melting pot. It is okay to ask people to invest in themselves...just a little. If you want free birth control don't work at St. Mary's

Joe Morin's picture

Slippery Slope...

This mandate on the churces is a violation of the free exercise clause of the first ammendment. This was obviously important to our founding fathers so as place it as the very 1st ammendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This ammendment was established to protect religions from the government. If this stands it will be a direct repudiation of our constitution. Warning to the atheists that can't see the forest through the trees and are simply gleeful from a govt. attack on organized religion. Pick your dearest ammendment and imagine Washington discarding it or declaring it antiquated or irrelevant. The Constitution has forever been the baseline with which all American's freedoms are based upon, protecting individual citizens from an ever changing elected government. Republicans, democrats, independents, green party, tea party, homey g party ,I don't care, can take control of the white house, congress or the senate but they must keep their policies between the lines. This president promised fundamental change. What he should have promised was a change in the foundations of America. What are Freedoms when comppared to universal health care??? If you work for a Catholic hospital just buy your own condoms for crying out loud.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dan, Can you please slice


Can you please slice that hair once more lengthwise? You are splitting hairs.

Joe Morin's picture

Another Example

The creeping incrementalism of the prgressive movement.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Put the religious argument on

Put the religious argument on the back burner for the night. It is all about freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is a two-way street don’t forget.

You are just splitting hairs to avoid dealing the real crux of the issue – which is freedom.
The struggle between separation of church and state simply exemplifies polar opposites in the freedom argument – freedom to follow your faith as you see fit, or in contrast, freedom not to follow any faith.

 's picture

Exactly right.

This "contraceptive" farce was raised and has been managed by Democrats to attempt to deflect attention away from Obama shredding the Constitution and accumulating dictatorial power in the executive branch.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot sez there is

The parrot sez there is serious reason to believe that Tron and Lil are the same person.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Diane, The entire oBamaCare

The entire oBamaCare issue is much broader than church and state separation. It is establishing a precedent that allows the Government to mandate what we as individuals must purchase all in the name of the greater good. We MUST not allow the Government to establish this precedence.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Mitt Romney set the precedence.....

........with Romney Care in Massachusetts. A fact that he is trying very hard to run away from.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

There is a difference between

There is a difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. The difference is, well, I don’t live in Massachusetts!

I have the freedom of choice not to live there. There is no place to escape Obamacare mandates. Contraception is just the beginning. It is all about freedom. Don’t get side tracked with the religious argument.

RONALD RIML's picture


We're all forced to underwrite 'Religions' by picking up the services that their 'Tax' dollars should support - but don't (as they are exempt from such Taxation).

They should then provide 'Insurance' for their employees whom may then utilize it as they see fit to do so.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Not all non-profit

Not all non-profit organizations are religious. That being said, any income generated from cash reserves or investments that are held for a non-profit organization are taxed at normal rates.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...