AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine Attorney General William Schneider has decided not to sign onto a lawsuit filed this week that alleges the Obama administration has violated the First Amendment by requiring employers to provide contraception coverage.
That lawsuit, filed Thursday by Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, was backed by six other state attorneys general in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. All are Republicans.
“This regulation forces millions of Americans to choose between following religious convictions and complying with federal law,” Bruning, who is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Nebraska, said in a statement. “This violation of the First Amendment is a threat to every American, regardless of religious faith.”
Earlier this month, Maine’s attorney general did join 12 others in signing a letter that urged President Barack Obama to reverse his policy position that requires religiously affiliated employers to provide birth control to workers.
In a statement provided to media members after news broke that Schneider signed that Feb. 10 letter, Maine’s attorney general also questioned the constitutionality of the president’s stance.
“A recently proposed federal mandate requiring religious employers that provide health insurance coverage to their employees to include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and related services fails to preserve a sufficient exemption for religious affiliated organizations and is therefore unconstitutional,” he said. “As a result of this federal mandate, many religiously affiliated organizations could now find that they have to act contrary to their religious beliefs and provide for free contraceptive coverage in their health plans.”
Asked Friday whether he had changed his mind, Schneider said he had not.
“But I think it’s premature to file a lawsuit because [Obama] has shown a willingness to amend his position,” the attorney general said in a phone interview.
A number of womens’ groups criticized Schneider earlier this week for signing the original letter. Some accused him of reversing his own position for political purposes.
In 1999, when Schneider was a member of the Maine House of Representatives, he voted in favor of Maine’s contraception equity law. Since then, Maine law has required all health insurance policies that provide prescription drug coverage to include contraceptive coverage, with a limited exception for churches and religiously affiliated schools.
Schneider said Maine’s law is different than the Obama administration’s recent policy position.
Some Democratic lawmakers on Friday called on Schneider to stay out of the national debate over contraception. A letter signed by 32 House and Senate members was sent to the attorney general on Friday.
“Maine lawmakers overwhelmingly supported the idea that women should have equal access to birth control as a matter of health and common sense,” said House Minority Leader Emily Cain of Orono. “Clearly, the attorney general’s decision to join the national effort is inconsistent with Maine law and his vote.”
The Maine Women’s Lobby also has gathered more than 800 signatures this week asking the attorney general to reconsider. Charlotte Warren, spokeswoman for the women’s lobby, said Friday that she was pleased to hear Schneider decided to keep Maine out of the lawsuit.
“I hope part of it had to do with hearing from Mainers,” she said.
Schneider responded to female Democrats late in the day Friday with his own letter and stood by his decision.
“I am distressed to see you joining in the political attacks on my legal decision to join other attorneys general around the country,” he wrote. “It is my duty to try to stop unconstitutional rules that will affect Mainers.”
Schneider said he understands that every time he signs his name to something, there is likely to be backlash from one group or another.
“It’s become a bigger part of the job than I expected,” he said. “We have opportunities almost every day, but I really try hard to assess each case on a legal basis.”
Considering how generous America’s health care system has been to Bill
Schneider you would think he would be considerate of other people’s needs.
This issue was settled by SCOTUS Justice Scalia a few years ago when he stated in a majority opinion that when a church goes into business it MUST abide by the same rules that any other ogranization in that business must abide by, regardless of religious dogma.
“Maine attorney general stays out of contraception lawsuit against Obama”
Good.
But can we still talk about the fact that it is still outrageous that he even ever considered it ?
That’s a stupid question disq because if someone asked him if he was going to join in on the lawsuit and he said no, then you automatically assume that he considered it so from where you sit in liberal heaven, he should not have said anything. Then you would have been on here saying he was rude for not answering the question or accused him of considering the question before he gave an answer. No matter what, he loses with you.
Maine AG wants Obama to reverse contraception policy;
you dolt.
“AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine’s attorney general has joined several other state attorneys general in signing a letter recently that asks President Barack Obama to reverse his administration’s stance on requiring health insurance companies to provide contraception coverage.
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/02/22/politics/maine-ag-wants-obama-to-reverse-contraception-policy-womens-groups-cry-foul/?ref=relatedBox
So what is stup;id beside that ?
This is not the same thing as a church owning a connivence store, a hospital is clearly part of the churches mission. Questions need to be ask to the SCOTUS, is running a hospital the same as a church owning a business for profit. This issue will again be settled by the SCOTUS.
As a Catholic I personally think the Church should have never gotten in bed with the government. Catholic Charities takes in millions from the Feds and hires people who clearly disagree with the church and have no intention in holding up the Catholic viewpoint on social and moral issues. Most Catholic hospitals are Catholic in name only, they are run like a business and really could careless about the poor and needy. The Church needs to get back to its true mission, break ties with the feds and truly be Catholic.
Regardless if they see this as part of the church’s ‘mission’ or not they are competing with other hospitals and must abide by the same rules. They are subject to other health care laws, rules and regulations regarding level of care etc. so they shouldn’t be allowed to save money on employee costs by forcing their antiquated beliefs on their staff who quite possible aren’t even catholic; even if they are catholic polls say that most (97+%) of catholic women take birth control. Beside this is a HEALTh issue and should be decided on that basis only.
Fertility is a normal for most women, so birth control isn’t a health issue it’s a choice issue. If you choose to play with your fertility fine, but don’t ask me to pay for it.
Many women (a significant % of those on birth control medication) are prescribed it for serious medical conditions having nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. My grand daughter is one. Your comment only indicates your fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.
Women should have equal acces to birth control. A woman should make up her own mind about options based on her moral beliefs. I can’t beleive we are still talking about this after all this time.
I agree with you tennis 25 Everywoman not only the rich but the poor as well should have access to birth control. The extreme right of the Republican Party seems to have taken control of the entire party. A fact that they may well pay for in early December.
Who’s trying to stop people from buying contraception?
Who? The Catholic church. Employees have–as part of their pay–a benefits package that includes a healthcare plan. The Church wants to remove one of their healthcare benefits. It hopes to force NON-Catholic employees to toe the line of the church’s anti-contraception dogma.
If you worked for an organization that was run by people who deplored blood transfusions, they might want to remove payment for blood transfusions from your health insurance policy. And they could actually do that, as things now stand, unless they accept Federal funds. Institutions that accept Federal funds must follow Federal law, and that law says a company doesn’t get to tailor YOUR health insurance to suit THEIR religion.
Generic OCPs cost about 8 dollars a month. Less than the cost for a pack of smokes afterward.
So you are claiming to be a medical expert who knows what prescription is best for millions of women.
Arrogant and ignorant. A dangerous combination.
Talk about dangerous, I can’t believe people on here are actually defending the birth control pill. Women wake up you are being used by the pharmaceutical companies. Last year everyone was so concerned about BPA in children’s plastic bottles, however women will taking dangerous pills, patches, shots to keep their body from doing what nature wants it to do.
Why is this an issue for women, are condoms provided for men?
You do not have the right to dictate what a woman and her doctor decide is her best option. Why would you think that is OK?
Birth control meds are often prescribed to treat problems not related to pregnancy prevention. One of my grand daughters for example.
When men can get pregnant them we should start discussing covering them.
I’ll take it by your reply that is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing but name-calling, Tyke, that you could not find any logical argument against my postulate that contraception is available either cheap or free in the good ol’ USA in 2012. And that forcing a religious institution to pay for contraception and abortion which is anathema to its doctrine is morally wrong and just plain cruel. Check and mate.
Name calling? Hardly.
You keep repeating that certain types of drugs are fairly cheap as if that proves that ALL drugs in the category of birth control that are the best choice for ALL women are cheap. They aren’t. You are wrong.
One of my grand daughters has had a very specific quite expensive birth control drug prescribed to deal with a significant health issue not related to pregnancy prevention.
Your sweeping generalization and dismissal of women’s best interest and her and her doctors decisions is beyond the pale.
The proposal on federal rules on providing birth control under health insurance plans has been revised so that no church has to do it if it violates their teachings.
Yet you still rant about it. The only logical explanation is a desire to control women’s health issues and it is indeed incredibly ignorant and arrogant for anyone to take that position when following it would endanger many women..
Not name calling – truth telling.
“Many women (a significant % of those on birth control medication) are prescribed it for serious medical conditions having nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. My grand daughter is one. Your comment only indicates your fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.” Tyke 2012Good news for your granddaughter! These religious-sponsored plans have exceptions to pay for the non-contraceptive use of contraceptives! It has been mentioned many times recently in discussions on this board and elsewhere. Your comment only indicates your fundamental lack of understanding of this issue. More likely you are willfully ignorant of this issue. There is a great book on this subject called “Willful Blindness” by Margaret Heffernan. You may wish to read it sometime. ” The proposal on federal rules on providing birth control under health insurance plans has been revised so that no church has to do it if it violates their teachings.” Tyke 2012
This proposal shifts the responsibility for paying for contraceptives used for their primary purpose from the religious institutions themselves to the insurance plans that the religious institution pay for. Allows for some face saving for Obama and his minions, but does not change the fundamental injustice of the situation.Keep your ovaries off my rosaries.
P.S., note how this post managed to not call you arrogant. It is call civil discourse.
Uh huh. So now you want women to get their doctors to claim a “medical need” for the contraceptive just like they used to do for abortion when it was only allowed for reasons that protected the mother’s health? That would be the outcome you know.
The insurance companies do not charge more for contraceptives in a health plan because including them saves them money in the long run.
In any case, the revised policy does not require the religious organization to specify anything about contraceptives. It simply gives insurance companies the legal cover to do what they prefer to do anyway; cover contraceptives and save tons of money from the much, much higher costs from unwanted pregnancies.
That’s a lousy argument. You could go far and say, insurance companies don’t have to cover heart surgery. What’s stopping you from paying for it yourself?
Generic OCPs cost 8 dollars per month. Anyone mature enough to take on the responsibility of having sex ought to be able to swing 8 bucks.
So you are claiming to be a medical expert who knows what prescription is best for millions of women.
Arrogant and ignorant. A dangerous combination.
If your insurance company agrees to cover something then they should. I’m talking about government forcing companies to pay for it.
There were literally millions of standards large and small in health care requirements. To single this one out and claim the government is being heavy handed only now is ridiculous.
Just about every insurance company (possibly all) that offers a drug benefit to women does so at no additional cost to the company paying for the policies. The cost to the insurer of one pregnancy and hospital birth far, far exceeds providing birth control to a hundred women. It is more cost effective and profitable for the insurance company to provide coverage for birth control than to
This is an issue about companies specifically telling insurance companies they cannot provide birth control under their policy to force their religious beliefs on non church employees (churches are exempt from the rule for direct church employees).
It isn’t a question about who should have access, it is a question of whether the government has the right to FORCE religious organizations to provide it. This is not the ” extreme” right, it started when Obama threatened religious freedom. He wants us to talk about it as it deflects from talking about the highest gas prices ever this time of year, the 5% higher unemployment rate than when he took office or his class warfare strategy. We should probably talk about his new energy policy, algae!! Hahaha….he is laughable!
What’s laughable is your understanding of the facts. Religious organizations can opt out and the insurance companies themselves will provide the coverage with no raise in premiums for the religious organization.
Let me see if I can do a better job explaining this to you. Once again, this conversation STARTED when Obama threatened religious freedom. Now, instead of forcing religious groups to provide contreception and abortion, he is forcing their insurance company to cover it. The raise in premiums will be paid by the rest of us. Get it now???
So, what’s your point? Insurance companies cover all sorts of things, why are you singling out contraceptives? I don’t need insulin but it is covered by my insurance, do you see me screeching about the President and premiums because it of? There is nothing to “get.” You’re just being petty.
Obviously you are a man who has no clue why a lot of birth control pills are often used for. Do yourself a favor and see all the uses for the pills. Religious freedom has nothing to do with this issue. The fact is, it is an election year and the Catholic Church has thrown in its lot with the Republican Party.
Again, investigate just a little and find out why many women take the pill. And while you are at it, see how many Catholic institutions already have no problem offering insurance with birth control provisions.
It’s an interesting ruse of the Obama Administration to now mandate Insurance companies to cover birth control “pills” under the rubric of ‘women’s health.” Pro-lifer’s will now be paying premiums that now cover “women’s health”…… which uninformed people believe to be birth control pills, sponges and IUDs. It not only covers the pills, the sponges and the IUDs…..it also covers the morning after pill and abortions. Those abortions cover late-term abortions, partial birth abortions and born alive botched abortions. Pro-lifers will refuse funding these barbaric procedures.
Most people, who bother to investigate, know what is involved in killing the fetus in a partial birth abortion (sucking out the brains of the fetus) But under the policy of protecting the abortion doctors, when a fetus is born alive (called a “botched abortion) the doctor can legally finish off the born alive baby or put it in a closet or some other place where they don’t have to hear the gasping for air until the baby finally dies from lack of assistance in its attempt to survive. Pro-Life supporters cannot pay for these killings. 1st term abortions..2nd term abortions or 3rd term abortions. These types of abortions all fall under “birth control” and Women’s Health.
Your story about doctors being allowed to kill a baby born alive is an outright BS LIE.
It is defined as murder in all 50 states. The concept that it is not is a right wing myth being circulated to stir up emotions with LIES.
I believe you will find that non-contraceptive use of OCPs is covered by these religious-sponsored plans, so please find another argument to obfuscate the truth; that this is a pure power play by the secular progressives temporarily in power to force their views on to others. Keep your ovaries off my rosaries
So, it is ok for prescribing the pills for other reasons, this does not “trample on the 1st amendment? Great, if this is in fact your position, then what is the problem?
And your last sentence is non-nonsensical. Just as nobody can make a church bow to another god, neither should non-believers be subject to religious rules, no matter how it is posed as a freedom issue. Purely religious institutions pay no taxes, and many churches have a host of tax exempt properties and functions. If churches kept away from the public till, they would be in a stronger position to argue their religious points. But when they involve themselves in public activities, then they should follow American secular rules.
Keep your rosaries to yourself.
The problem is the Obama administration forcing Catholic organizations to pay for contraception for contraception purposes. Catholic doctrine teaches that contraception is morally wrong. It is an intrusion to religious liberties. Why not force a Jewish hospital to put pork on it’s cafeteria menu? After all, pork is tasty and some people like it. As for me if I wanted a big bacon and sausage breakfast, I would not go to a Jewish establishment and demand that they serve me bacon. Is is called being “culturally aware.” And as for my last sentence, it is a parody of the old “keep your rosaries off my ovaries” chant that pro abortion types used to screech at rallies to try to silence Catholics who were peacefully protesting at abortion mills.
The intrusion that you refer to is more like going to a Jewish hospital with no cafeteria. Instead, they give you vouchers for the restaurant next door. But, the Jewish hospital vouchers didn’t allow you to choose any pork products.
The problem with the “peaceful” protesters is that they often are the same ones who follow the medical personnell home and scream at the family. They harass anybody whose phone number they can get with late night calls. They send threatening letters to the clinic’s landlords, and let’s not forget the numerous doctors who have been killed by some of these peaceful protesters.
These same peaceful protesters have no problem voting for politicians who support the death penalty and see no contradiction in that. I just find that anybody who wants to run somebody else’s life must have some kind of superiority complex. Why is it that the right wing sees no contradiction about wanting the government out of their lives, yet they demand more and more restrictions on a women’s rights?
Haha…I happen to be a 53 year old woman. I took the pill for a few years when I was in my twenties and have nothing against it. I do, however, have a problem with the government telling insurance companies they have to cover abortions (contreception is the new term for abortion). Read the fine print and Obama’s record in Chicago on killing babies that survived abortions.
Yes, Obama was a medical doctor and performed lots of abortions. NOT! Are you nuts, accusing the president of murder?
It is an old debunked right wing lie. See my answer to menative for the details.
When someone has to resort to outright vicious lies to “make their case” it only becomes clearer and clearer that they have no real basis for their position.
Not again. That lie has been debunked over and over and here it comes again!
As a state legislator Obama voted against a grandstanding bill that was written specifically to define killing a baby born alive after a failed abortion murder, because that act was already defined as murder under the existing laws. Prosecutors and judges testified that the new law would duplicate the existing one and having two laws saying the same thing in different ways might actually allow someone who killed a just born baby to get off on a technicality.
So Obama voted the only way that was most likely to result in successful prosecution of anyone (doctor or otherwise) who killed a baby that survived an abortion. If you disagree with his vote it is saying that you believe more people should have the chance to walk free if the committed that act.
Is that what you are sayong? That you wish Obama had voted so that more murderers of newborns could avoid prosecution? Because that is what you have actually indictated with your ignorant statement!
If the abortionist chooses to let the born alive baby gasp for air for 1 minute to 4 hours before death releases them from the struggle to survive, why would it be a crime for the abortionist to assist the gasping struggling baby to put an end for its fight for life? The abortionist has already prescribed the drug/s that was supposed to kill the fetus before labor is induced. Most of the time, it’s a dead baby that is delivered, but some fighting fetuses survive the initial onslaught that was supposed end their life in the womb and are born alive.
Wouldn’t it be more merciful to stuff a rag in their struggling and “gasping for air” mouths instead of handing the live baby to a nurse to exit the delivery room ASAP and place the born alive in some dark corner on a cold shelf or counter and go back after an hour to see if death has finally occurred? Whichever angle pro-choicers want to look at it…… if the mother decides on aborting her fetus during the 2nd term (or 3rd term of pregnancy) the end goal is to have that fetus die. In utero seems to be preferable to the abortionist and the mother but the born-alive baby is doomed to the death chamber also. Ah, progress !! Ya gotta love it.
******************************
It wouldn’t do you any harm, TYKE, to do some fact checking of own…here’s Obama’s position on born alive babies as well as partial births.
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a “human being” with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
Got any legitimate (not Rush Limbaugh or his ilk) for what you claim?
I don’t believe it is true. It reads like an opinion piece written by an Obama hater.
YOUR Quote: “I don’t believe it is true. It reads like an opinion piece written by an Obama hater.” (Yah….I can see why you would think it was written by an Obama hater)
It’s not Rush Limbaugh or his ilk. If I prove what Obama’s position is on born-alive abortions (no matter what term the pregnancy is in) would it really change your opinion of Obama or your own position on a woman’s right to end the life of her fetus?
If a woman has made a decision to abort her fetus in her 2nd trimester13- 27 weeks (or 3rd)…..and with medical intervention, the born alive baby has a chance of survival…the abortionist is duty bound and obligated to allow the baby to die…because the birth is classified as an abortion and was the decision and intent of the mother.
Depending on the gestation of the pregnancy, the fetus can breath for a minute or up to 4 hours. Whichever the case may be….the baby is put out of sight….usually in utility closets to struggle for breath and eventually die. I wouldn’t want to be the person checking on the baby to determine if the ultimate end result (death) has finally happened.
****************************************
STATE OF ILLINOIS
92nd General Assembly
Regular Session
Senate Transcript (20 Legislative Day)
Presiding Officer (Senator Karpiel)
March 30, 2001
Senate Bill 1093
Sponsored by Sen. O’Malley
The gist of the bill was to recognize the born alive fetus as a a human being and an American citizen with all the rights afforded a citizen under the U.S. Constitution. Senator Obama said it would be a violation of the Constitution and the 14th amendment.
Just about every insurance company (possibly all) that offers a drug
benefit to women does so at no additional cost to the company paying
for the policies. The cost to the insurer of one pregnancy and hospital
birth far, far exceeds providing birth control to a hundred women. It is
more cost effective and profitable for the insurance company to provide
coverage for birth control than to
This is an issue about companies specifically telling insurance
companies they cannot provide birth control under their policy to force
their religious beliefs on non church employees (churches are exempt
from the rule for direct church employees).
Yes, it is really awful that the Roman Catholic Church must follow the law.
Actually, the president should be required to abide by the law. But, he seems to be above the law and the Constitution. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Believe it. Women do have equal access as men to contraception. I just don’t see why I have to pay for their dalliance, so by what duty am I obliged to pay? If they don’t want to get pregnant, don’t screw around.
I hope you are just as opened minded toward woman who choose not to use birth control?
I believe in mandatory abortion.
Well, that’s just funny…..good thing this didn’t happen when you were born, because you wouldn’t be posting!
Me to start with republicans and keep aborting until the world is at peace.
“Maine lawmakers overwhelmingly supported the idea that women should have equal access to birth control as a matter of health and common sense,” said House Minority Leader Emily Cain of Orono. “Clearly, the attorney general’s decision to join the national effort is inconsistent with Maine law and his vote.”
This law suit has nothing to do with contraception and it is unfortunate that Maine’s Attorney General withdrew his support to fight against the Presidents attempt to violate the First Amendment.
Any woman in America who feels the need to take birth control has the right to walk into any office of Planned Parenthood in their community where they will be provided with all the FREE contraception they want.
It’s a WOMAN’S choice, NOT a Man’s….
It’s a woman’s choice for an abortion; it’s a woman’s choice for the pill, but it’s a man’s choice as well, there are condoms.
My point is this: they are considering with the wrong attitude. They are thinking that they are saving money; yet they will continually complain about unwed parents and single mother’s, especially those receiving benefits. Reducing head start funding, child care and educational opportunities is not going to result in young adults acting responsibly. Nor is reducing child contraceptive benefits going to assist helping younger eligible adults get to work.
This conversation has to do with the Health Care Law
and
Contraception is a part of health care.
You are correct, contraception is part of health. The lawsuit has to do with a violation of the First Amendment. The Obama Administration however would like you to believe it is completely about contraception. They would also like you to believe they are not responsible for the rising gasoline prices either, but that claim is false as well.
The lawsuit has to do with the Catholic church wanting to force its religious practices (no contraception) upon non-Catholic employees.
The church accept Federal dollars and property tax exemptions, and thus must obey Federal laws such as this. All it has to do to avoid obeying this law is to stop accepting the money.
It is clear that you know very little about the Catholic church and even less about the lawsuit. If you really want to support a cause why don’t you hit the streets and start complaining about the high gasoline prices our President claims he can do nothing about.
What is clear is that you cannot explain why this is such a 1st Amendment question? Can you explain why, if this is such a big issue for the Catholic Church, many, many Catholic institutions already have no problem offering their employees the same policy other similar institutions offer, even when those policies offer birth control options? Why is this so hard for the right to see? It is such hypocrisy for the Church to whine about this. This is clearly an attempt by the Catholic hierarchy to cozy up to the Republican Party during an election cycle.
It is a First Amendment issue because it is about the government dictating what a religious institution must do or not do. The Left however wants to confuse the public by trying to convince us it is about contraception. Unlike those on the Left, a great many of us on the Right don’t always march in the same step.
You didn’t do any reading on “the pill”, did you. Because it isn’t all about contraception. What if you find out that “the pill” is often prescribed for other medical reasons that have noting to do with preventing pregnancy? And that lots of Catholic institutions already have the same insurance coverage that is all of a sudden impossible for the Catholic Church to condone?
So how is it causing any controversy now? Why is it all of a sudden a 1st Amendment question?
Hahaha. Stay on point.
Ah yes, let the women go to PP when their fibroids are causing pain or their bleeding is heavy and they need the pill. And because the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t allow blood transfusions, let them go to the Red Cross and pick up a bag of blood on their way to the hospital when they need an operation. Many Hindu temples are vegetarian, so let’s get the meat out of any government store (PXs and the like).
Where does it end? Do we only allow a few religious organizations to dictate what the government and we do (and who decides which ones they are?), or does every belief system get a chance to veto things in public life and commerce?
Ah yes, let’s just cloud the issue by going on a tangent about totally unrelated issues. Typical left wing response. When I can’t defend my position divert everyone’s attention by talking about something completely different.
If you are going to argue a position, at least stay on point!
MountainMan_73 Today 08:59 AM: “It is clear that you know very little about the Catholic church and even less about the lawsuit. If you really want to support a cause why don’t you hit the streets and start complaining about the high gasoline prices our President claims he can do nothing about.”
MountainMan_73 Today 10:54 AM:”Ah yes, let’s just cloud the issue by going on a tangent about totally unrelated issues….If you are going to argue a position, at least stay on point!”
When attempting to make a point you really shouldn’t contradict yourself.
The issue, from the right wing perspective, (and the point you argue) is that it is a religious freedom issue. And my point is that whose religion and what religions are we going to let decide public policy. Are we going to let other recognized, mainstream groups use their “freedom” to penalize those of us who don’t hold to their tenets.
Why do you think it is changing the subject when I ask if blood transfusions are also going to be restricted in some people’s insurance policies. you can bet if transfusions were against Catholic theology they would be calling that “trampling on religious freedom”.
The AG should be working on what’s in the pot, not adding more hate and discontent. He’s got many LEF shootings, and a State Treasurer to consider. Not only that he has a state representative to prosecute. But, I’m sure he’ll be taking the weekend off.
“I really try hard to assess each case on a legal basis.” This man is a constitutional and ethical trainwreck waiting to happen. Clear the track!
He made a good choice…
“Obama has shown a willingness to amend his position” is certainly a pipe dream. AG Schneider is pro-abortion and is staying in step with the most pro-abortion president ever.
Ms. Warren: you and your organization do not represent the true thoughts of Mainers.
A woman’s right to birth control has not been the issue–it is the “right to FREE birth control at taxpayer expense that is the issue.
Most insurances have a co-pay for prescription drugs. Birth control drugs are also taken for medical reasons not just birth control.
dadoje you’re right… some women do take birth control meds for medical reasons. I have to take it for medical reasons. Since it has the label of “Birth Control” every one thinks that’s all it’s used for but it isn’t. and people need to realize that.
Where is the taxpayer paying for this? Fox has gotten you so used to screaming “TAXPAYER” that you forgot to turn it off when discussing this one.
Your understanding of the issue is so minimal that you don’t care if your writing makes you look like you just woke up and scream the first thing that comes to mind.
This Lawsuit, if accepted, would be against the Health care Law, passed by both Houses and signed by the President. Not Mr. Obama.
Out law preventive medicine . Do you have any idea what kids cost. I think that would save companies lots on money not having to pay medical for another child get real.
No one Is making religious people take birth control . Put your money where your mouth Is and support these kids growing up In poverty or to parents that should not have kids . Better to have birth control than criminals that might kid you or your kids.
Racist Republican White Man telling women they cant have birth control. Put an aspirin between your legs.
It was a joke. Not a funny one, but clearly stated in jest. Your post is misleading at best, but probably just an intentional lie on your part. P.S., calling a person a racist is the liberal equivalent of the ‘f’ bomb these days. The “Racist Republican White Man” you quote above is Foster Friess. I know a little bit about him, but I am ignorant. I know that he is a rich man, conservative, who has given milllions of dollars to charities including funding clean water projects in Africa. That does not seem like the kind of thing that a racist would do. Might I politely ask that you, Knightscross or any of the 16 “likes” of you post educate me as to how Mr. Friess is a racist? I’ll just mix myself up a product of distillation and await your replies. Thank you in advance for your wisdom
Santorum said Black People should not take welfare, not me. Racist Speech in my book.
Santorum’s money man said women should put an aspirin between their legs for birth control not me. Two Racist Republican White men that want to control women’s right to birth control. It appears that Most Tea Party-Rethuglicans think this way now a days. Pathetic. This AG Clown is whacked out too.Tell you what, I am a woman that will vote Independent or Democrat and never ever vote for a Rethuglican, NEVER again.
Sorry, Knightscross, I can not let your factual inaccuracies, which I am sure the result of ignorance, not intention,(is that O.K. BDN moderator?) go unchallenged. Mr. Friess said a joke, that no reasonable person, who was not itching for a fight, would interpret as wanting to control women’s reproductive freedoms. As for your comment about Mr. Santorum’s comment, I believe you are so ignorant in this particular circumstance, on so many levels that it would not be productive do engage in civil discourse with you on this matter. If you would like to review the facts (his actual comments were caught on camera and posted on the web) and then comment further, please repost. As this is the best you and the rest of the progressives on this site (the now 17 likes) could come up with, I take it that you concede the point that both Mr. Friess and Sandtorum are not racists. Anyone out there wanting to back up Knightscross’ accusations of racism? Anyone? Anyone?
They said what they said and it is what it is.
“Tea Party-Rethuglicans”….. “AG Clown is whacked”…….”never ever vote for a Rethuglican”
***********************************
CONGRATULATIONS……you win the contest for name-calling !
Some people make judgments about a whole group people without knowing very much about them. Sometimes people are afraid of those who seem different from them and, unfortunately, they express that with name-calling.
{“I am distressed to see you joining in the political attacks on my legal decision to join other attorneys general around the country,” he wrote. “It is my duty to try to stop unconstitutional rules that will affect Mainers.”}
You ain’t fooli’n noboby dipstick!
Go after Poliquin if you are concerned with violating constitutional rules!
It took the AG a while but even he knows a ‘dog of a case’ when he see’s one. This case is about personal choice and responsibility, nothing more. That the case was settled years ago in Roe vs. Wade makes this whole re-hash of the issue nonsensical and does nothing more than provide a soapbox for the more religious rightwing to preach, and regretably, scream their position’s to a public that has already made their decision. Women are going to choose, regardless of their belief’s or faith, and have that choice guaranteed them. And anyone who says different is showing their bigotry and ignorance of both women and The Constitution. A women’s right to chose is both a very personal choice and one of the most responsible personal action’s she can take, both as a woman and as a person. And no one has the right to take that from her. That the AG finally saw this is a small sign that maybe there is a shred of common sense, and a recalling of The Court’s decision, now being remembered in Augusta. Given the recent AG run in with the Administration and Paulie regarding his position on healthcare in Maine, and the budget muck-muck, the AG saw this one coming and said ‘No way !’. For once I applaud his discretion.
This is all just a red herring since insurance companies don’t charge a premium for birth control, just like they don’t charge a premium for physicals if your over 50 years old.
Birth control saves the insurer money.
It’s just the way the world is. It isn’t a plot to destroy whats left of religion in America.
“Maine attorney general stays out of contraception lawsuit against Obama”
Good.
But can we still talk about the fact that it is still outrageous that he even ever considered it ?
The Democrat’s attack against religious freedom needs to be
stopped in its tracks. The issue is not about contraception as the
deceivers would like you to think. The issue is all about religious
liberties and protecting the First Amendment. Bravo Mr. Schneider for supporting every American’s right to religious freedom and for supporting laws that protect these very rights that our country was founded upon. It’s a pretty sad day when the government believes it has the right to force people to SIN according to their religious beliefs.
Shame on the DEMS for attacking the Catholic Church and every other religious group in this great country.
I will say again, where can this be religious liberty when many Catholic institutions already offer the very same insurance policies they are now saying are against their beliefs? Either the Church is really, really hypocritical, or the Republicans got them to sign up as acolytes for the next election.
And again, since Jehovah’s Witnesses find transfusions against their beliefs, are they the next group that will demand changes in insurance policies offered? Where will it end? Why do we allow groups whose membership rolls are falling fast this veto power?
Because they have tax exemptions, they should either pay up or quit trying to make social policy. The law clearly states they cannot use their status to influence legislation, but they do anyway. (How much money, for instance, did they contribute to anti-gay initiatives in ME and Cal.?)
Blood transfusions are life-saving measures to prevent loss of life. Without life rights don’t apply, not even the 1st Amendment. In contrast, contraceptives are not treatments for diseases or injuries, let alone life-saving measures. Besides, contraceptives such as the drug named Ella can cause abortions that end lives in violation of the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes, “First, do no harm”.
As to tax exemptions, please show me the law that states religious individuals and institutions are prohibited from using their status to influence legislation or risk losing their tax exemption? You won’t find such a law because it simply does not exist.
PS: If you wish to know what religious organizations can or cannot do to retain their tax exempt status see the following discussion:
http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/churches-and-political-lobbying-activities1/
In fact, “the pill” is used for other reasons, other than for contraception.
Since you might benefit from a link, here goes:
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/thepill/a/otherbenorcontr.htm
Your own link shows the restrictions, and what do you call it when Catholic Church officials mention Obama by name? When they act like an arm of the Republican Party? Is this not political activity? The IRS code states they cannot spend “a substantial” part of their time lobbying.
IRS website: “In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a
substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence
legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.”
“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are
absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or
intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition
to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political
campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written)
made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any
candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against
political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in
denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain
excise taxes.”
I can’t speak for all the churches (there are so many denominations out there) but I can tell you that the Catholic Church and Catholic Institutions do not as a matter of policy lobby on behalf of any candidate. Also, they do not spend a substantial amount of time lobbying for special legislation, and even if they did, what specifically constitutes a “substantial” amount of time? One percent of their time?
Some pills – like pills to regulate the ovulation cycle- – that can be used as contraceptives pose no moral objection that I know of if they are intended for medical purposes.
I’ll be ending this discussion as I can see that it appears at this point just between you and I. I doubt I’ll be able to persuade you and I doubt you’ll be able to persuade me.
Of course you can’t be persuaded, you already know it all.
Contraceptives not a treatment for diseases? Please get a clue, learn to read, or at the very least go ask your doctor, better yet, your wife’s obgyn if birth control pills can treat a disease.
Too bad they can’t treat ignorance.
So is this the withdrawal method I keep hearing about?
It took Mr Schneider three weeks to read the State of Maine Constitution and state law before he could render an ” advisement ” that Mr Poliquin disassociate himself from his business activities. Based on this I am not sure that he is qualified to venture in the realm of constitutional law and judgements on “First Amendment ” rights. Please stay home and try to perform the job you have.
In my opinion in this instance the Catholic Church is trying to hide behind the ” First Amendment ” while it attempts to enforce a dogma that the majority of their parishners nor longer believe in. And any time a church steps outside of the boundaries of the church they should be subject to any and all rules and regulations that any other business is. At that point they are no longer practicing religion but are engaging in commerce.
According to you then it appears to be okay if Obama mandates employers, including Catholic institutions, to provide health insurance to their employees with free suicide coverage even though the mandate violates the conscience of some employers. Contraceptives like suicide is not even health care.
Also, if I say something in this forum that one or many readers might disagree with, am I hiding behind the First Amendment? Am I doing something sinister? Since when can’t anyone disagree with someone else without being accused of hiding behind the 1st Amendment, and by implication, being sinister? Since when can’t a church publicly express itself “outside its boundaries”? Is it only atheists who can do so? The First Amendment was expressly written to prevent this sort of religious suppression.
Jesus Christ and his apostle Paul had a public ministry. Paul was arrested and chained in the last years of his life on account of this ministry. Jesus Christ was made to suffer at the hands of Roman solders most horrifically to his death. Tens of thousands of his followers were crucified. Peter, his most trusted apostle, was crucified upside down. Maybe not for you, but for some people this sort of persecution is okay as long as it affects just “religious” people.
Insurance, even medicare, covers viagra.
Tens of thousands of people were murdered in the inquisition. In this country women were burned for religious reasons.
Preachers used to say that God demanded the separation of the races, and women must be subservient to their husbands.
Do you want that level of control back? No true American will support the Church, any church, ruling our country.
Thank God, this administration has embarrassed Maine on the national scale enough already.
Thank you, Atty. Gen. Schneider. The people screaming “religious freedom” on this are actually trying to force their religious beliefs on others.
And how would that be? If one doesn’t like the policies of the Church, find another Church.
Whether or not Maine joins in a lawsuit is also a financial consideration since this state is in difficulties enough at this point. The only ones trying to force their personal beliefs on others are the Obama policies and its supporters.
Eh? The Catholic Church is trying to force all its employees, Catholic and not, to obey the doctrine of the Church. Doctrine put forth by an old, celibate man in Rome . . .
Didn’t say Catholic, just said Church. Don’t care whose.
If I provide you with a health insurance policy without contraceptive coverage, how am I forcing it on you?
Wrong, Obama doesn’t have the right to dictate any aspect of the church
How about you get your precious leader to start telling those of the Muslim faith that they would also have to comply— I’d like to see that happen…
This and “many” other anti-American tactics by Obama are why he will not get reelected…!
How about those of the Muslim faith start telling you and your family how they have to behave? You will pray five times a day, you will cover your wives and your daughters. You will grow a beard. I don’t need an semi-celibate religious leaders to tell me and mine how to live. If they want to start a Church sponsored hospital, hire only ministers, that is legal.
Generic OCPs cost about 8 dollars per month. You should educate yourself. Look up the definition of “sponsorship” vs. “censorship” in the dictionary. Most liberals can not tell the difference between these two words.
So you are claiming to be a medical expert who knows what prescription is best for millions of women.
Arrogant and ignorant. A dangerous combination.
Amen to that
Once freedom of conscience is violated there is no end in sight with what will happen next. All Americans, regardless of religious affiliation or no affiliation should stand together to protect this most cherished freedom. What is happening now is the government mandating to curtail it. No one other than the government is trying to force their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on anyone else.
You still haven’t articulated how this prevents and violates freedom of religion. You also haven’t articulated how this contraceptives mandate is an attempt by the government to force its religious beliefs on others. It’s a healthcare standard, not a standard of religion or belief system.
I am not saying the government is attempting to squelch religion per se because I don’t know what the government’s intentions are. But what I am saying is that the latest Obamacare mandate effectively violates religious freedom by forcing some individuals and institutions against their conscience to provide health insurance with contraceptive & sterilization coverage. Not all healthcare standards are acceptable to everyone, not to mention that contraceptives is not healthcare. Contraceptives do nothing to treat, ameliorate, or prevent injures, diseases, or physical defects.
In simple terms;
1) forcing anyone or any institution to do something against their conscience violates their 1st Amendment freedom to exercise their deeply held beliefs,
2) I do not know for sure if the government is attempting to squelch the exercise of religious liberty, and
3) contraceptives, although defined as “health care” by the Administration, is not really health care.
1) Many institutions believed in segregation. Enough said?
2) If you don’t know, or don’t understand, look for facts, don’t complain that Obama is the cause of your ignorance.
33) Contraceptive serve many non-birth preventing health issues. See above, and do your research. P.S. None of your business if it is contraception. When was the last time Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich took a birth control pill?
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion. Keep your beliefs to youself please.
I know you’d like me to keep my thoughts to myself. But I have no such intentions. The 1st Amendment makes no mention of “freedom from religion” except that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..” It does however provide for freedom of religion by guaranteeing Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It sounds to me like you support the first part of the Amendment clause but not the rest of it.
This should read “Schneider backs forcing Catholics to break faith”
I didnt know that Schneider was another name for liberal Obama supporter
Schneider best brush-up his resume and apply for a job in whats left of the Obama administration’s last term
He’s smarter than I gave him credit.
yessah
The pope and his bishops are trying to use the U.S. government to enforce dogma that they can’t even sell to Catholics. The Catholic “church,” which is the people in it, have rejected the Vatican’s outdated restrictions since the vast majority of Catholics practice birth control.
Catholic-owned institutions like schools and hospitals have no right to ban insurance coverage for their non-Catholic employees.
To quote Monty Python,
Men, men, men, men. What have a man’s wishes have to do with women’s health?
Facts:
1. Birth control pills are taken in many cases for non birth control reasons to control disease.
2. The Church is OK with the Obama compromise.
3. The Republicans have ignored every call from the church to feed the poor or continue unemployment.
4. Sharia law,…………Big, bad, scary, attack on America.
5. Christian law, …….Warm fuzzy, bunny hugs, from men telling women what to do.
It sounds to me like your engaging in religious baiting. I won’t go there with you.
When you find yourself unable to respond to factual statements, it is not religious baiting, it is a failure of comprehension.
Are any of the facts particularly scary or is the statement of facts alone in place of sound bites or dogma just too much to deal with?
This is not an insult, not a slap in the face with my glove, the facts I listed are the basis, even if simplified, for the anti-woman, anti-black president, so which ones are you unable to engage on?
Facts: 1. Non-contraceptive use of OCPs are covered by these religious-sponsored plans, including Georgetown University’s plan that that law student wasn’t able to lie about before Congress recently. 2. Catholic church doctrine does not approve of abortion or chemical contraception, and the so-called compromise carries as much legitimacy as Bill Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” whopper. 3.Spending on welfare in the U.S. is currently at the highest level in the past 236 years. 4. True. 5. Censorship = me telling you what you can not do. Sponsorship = me paying for you to do something you want to do. Please learn the difference. Most liberals never do. P.S. generic OCPs are about 8 dollars per month, or free at your local planned parenthood abortion mill. Keep your ovaries off my rosaries.
Freedom of religion means freedom from religion. If you want a government that is run by religion, move to Iran, you’ll fit right in.
Rubber and glue. If you want a government that restricts the theology of religions and the practical application of its principles, you move to Iran. However, I suspect you would not fit right in, and I suspect you would be arrested and held hostage.
The exception would allow all contraceptives to be banned. You are right, most of the non church plans already provide coverage for contraceptives, so leave it alone. The rest of your comments are rants, not facts.
P.S. I am not Catholic, I am not Muslim, I will not have your “voices in the sky” dictating what a health plan is. The U.S. was based on a secular foundation just to get away from the type of laws the right whiners are asking for.
Keep your transvaginal probes out of a woman’s body.
I guess the moderator didn’t like my original reply. 1-5 are facts, not opinions, let alone rants. I will concede that the “liberals don’t know the difference between censorship and sponsorship” is opinion, not fact. Fun fact: Transvaginal probes are less invasive than abortions.
The tea bag A. G. scurries out of his cady, mouths off, kindles a firestorm of outrage; and vanishes just like the Cheshire Cat. All that lingers is that signature smile.