So is subby a top commenter at ThinkProgress, or did subby plagiarize his/her headline from ThinkProgress's top commenter on the Santorum debacle? (see one thread down)

You decide!

vernonFL: This is an organization that believes that virgins can magically become pregnant. I'm not sure why we are respecting their views on women's health issues.

ScouserDuck: I'm not trolling and also not Catholic. My wife and I started using NFP because my wife wasn't a big fan of the side effects that the hormones caused. There is a chart involved and temp taking every morning, but once you establish your bodies patterns it's super easy.

The raw data is pretty clear that the user rate failure is pretty high. Again, if you are scrupulous, you certainly can use NFP effectively, but it does require that you are scrupulous. In the real world, most people aren't going to be that thorough, as the data bears out. I think that has a bearing on the overall effectiveness of the methodology, and, I'm sorry to say, on that point, NFP is a bust and, once again, hormonal methods are well ahead of every other option.

As far as what numbers we want/choose to believe, while it's relevant to arguing my original statement, it isn't relevant to this overall discussion. We need to remember that our govrenment isn't in business to protect the non-existent right to have all the consequence free sex we want.

Well, I was bringing those figures in specifically to talk about that statement... so there's that.

I do dispute the notion that birth control is equivalent to having non-consequential sex, any more than wearing a seat belt and using an airbag constitutes consequence free driving.

Since I'm undecided on this specific case, I'll leave you to argue with others who are more committed to their positions (while I watch and try to make up my own mind), but I've got to tell you that the way your framing the question isn't exactly coming across as a persuasive starting point for me.

FWIW, I really think you'd be better off to continue pursuing the question of whether or not this infringes on the religious freedom of the employers rather than trying to frame it in terms of sexual consequence.

But advocates say the measure is an advance for women's reproductive rights, pointing to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that studies sexual and reproductive issues, which reported last year that nearly all sexually active U.S. women had used birth control. That includes 98 percent of Catholic women, the study reported. (new window)

Government can't tell people what they can and can't do, only religion can

Animatronik: Fetuses and embryos are not diseases.

They're not people either.

moistD: I'm so happy you live in Somerville. Every time I see an idiot around here, I know there is at least someone balancing them all out.

Ha, thanks. I'm on the Medford/Somerville line. You can find me at Magoun's Saloon quite a bit.

jjorsett: Dusk-You-n-Me: Animatronik: Fetuses and embryos are not diseases.

They're not people either.

Then why will you be charged with murder if you shoot a pregnant woman and cause the death of the whatever-you-want-to-call-it that she's carrying?

Because the laws are written that way. I'm not a lawyer. Ask an expert.

Salt Lick Steady: jjorsett: So can a Jehovah's Witness institution deny coverage for blood transfusions? Can a Hindu organization deny bovine based insulin? Can a Jewish or Muslim group deny porcine heart valves?

I think they should be able to, and if you object, don't work for them. In fact, let's get the feds out of the business of dictating what has to be covered, and how much it costs and who pays for it. That's the larger issue, and from Obamacare flows all these other issues that should have never become issues. It's turned into an eternal litigation factory and it hasn't even fully kicked in yet.

Don't take fed money, don't have to agree by fed rules. It's as simple as personal responsibility.

Unless of course you're speaking of federal constitutional rights.

No, it should be an all-or-nothing decision. You want fed stuff, you obey fed rules.

Don't like it? Don't play...but don't cry when we censor your freedom of speech and take all your guns and civil liberties, either.

Salt Lick Steady: Gyrfalcon: Salt Lick Steady: jjorsett: So can a Jehovah's Witness institution deny coverage for blood transfusions? Can a Hindu organization deny bovine based insulin? Can a Jewish or Muslim group deny porcine heart valves?

I think they should be able to, and if you object, don't work for them. In fact, let's get the feds out of the business of dictating what has to be covered, and how much it costs and who pays for it. That's the larger issue, and from Obamacare flows all these other issues that should have never become issues. It's turned into an eternal litigation factory and it hasn't even fully kicked in yet.

Don't take fed money, don't have to agree by fed rules. It's as simple as personal responsibility.

Unless of course you're speaking of federal constitutional rights.

No, it should be an all-or-nothing decision. You want fed stuff, you obey fed rules.

Don't like it? Don't play...but don't cry when we censor your freedom of speech and take all your guns and civil liberties, either.

Why are you arguing against your own argument? Feds can't condition federal constitutional rights on receipt of federal money. They can, however, condition federal funds on whether the states obey by the strictures attached... unless those strictures are precisely counter to federal/constitutional law.

So, for example, you lose your IDEA funds if you fail to provide disability education. But you can't lose your funds if the very basis of the federal rule is sectarian in nature.

No, I like my idea better. If you don't want to behave, you lose ALL your rights. If you don't want to provide basic human rights, like medical care, then you don't get basic human rights, like free speech. If we're going to be dictators of freedom, let's do it right!