I stand chastened. What I meant to say was that it seemed to be done out of political expediency rather than any true desire for change. Another example of how 'politics are broken' and why we should all keep politics and politicians as much out of our lives as possible.

The question is whose political agenda. Is it Barraks agenda to get health care as close to nationalized as possible, or the Republican agenda to stir up their base into an unthinking fury and prevent this president from getting anything accomplished that they can possibly avoid.

What is with that anyways? They were perfectly willing to work with Bill Clinton despite the fact he was arguably much further away from them ideologically, but as soon as the first black president is elected they become obstructionist to the point of absurdity. Are they racist or is there some coincidence there about them reading their own press more or becoming further detached from reality?

Squeek, tell you what- if you really believe that politics in general is broken then don't vote this year. I however will vote, as I believe only one party is broken.

Considering this was a mandate from the Obama administration, that isn't hard to figure out.
Nice try, but I will vote. I just wish there was a "We can't afford it" party.

except that it wasn't a mandate, it was a clarification of already existing laws.

somehow i'm not suprised. "Politics is broken and we should all stay away from it, but oh, I'm going to vote" kinda goes along with the whole "keep in the vote" tactic the Republicans used in 2010, including sending out flyers on official looking stationary 'reminding' people in heavilly democratic district to vote at the wrong location and two days late...

Cripes, I'm dizzy from all this spin...

Yeah, Obama wants healthcare for poor mothers and the Republicans are racists who want nothing more than to whip people into an unthinking frenzy. You're about as biased as they come with that bit of expert analysis.

Clinton was willing to work with them, that's why he got things done. Obama walked in with a supermajority and didn't want to work with them. Then when he lost the supermajority he decided it was better to run against an obstructionist republican party than to work with them so he refused to budge and got nothing done as a result.

Couple of things:
1. Not a woman. Don't expect to make the change this late in life. So there are a few things I don't understand:
a. If 98% (reported - probably more like 60%, but a majority nonetheless) of Catholics use physical/chemical birth control, is the other 2% fueling the fire? Or the Republican party machine doing it?
b. Just how many hospitals/med facilities ARE Catholic? How many are we talking about here? Doubt if its 50%. Is there another, non-denominational one around the corner? If I really need a beer, and my local grocery doesn't sell it, do I try to change their own rules? Do I go out and make every grocery sell beer? No, I go to the bar.
c. Aren't tax-exempt organizations allowed to make their own rules, to a certain extent?
2. Should I really be worried about who is President next year?
a. Hasn't the normal 4-year term really changed to an 8-year term, with an early-out at 4 for really, really lousy leaders?
b. Doesn't a president need a term to 'gain friends and influence people' as his first term, which is spent mostly gathering money for his second term, which then can be used to really get things done? No dis meant to Obama, but it seems that's what has happened with every 8-year president for a long time. Clinton's second one was productive.
3. Is the political system really broken?
a. Weren't issues such as this fought over since Washington, probably more important ones, at that?
b. Isn't our present system set up to be a lumbering slug, unwilling to change quickly unless times get rough, hence, requiring some checks and balances? Most people dread a Senate, House, Judicial and Executive branch each of the same party, either Dem or Rep.
4. Is this issue hotter now because of the existence of 24/365 wall-to-wall cable TV and America's need to be constantly deluged by news, left OR right?

For me (and most I suspect?) it's mostly the government getting involved in mandating a religious organization partake in something they find to be against their religion. I'm pro-birth control personally. Hell, yesterday was Valentines day so I used some myself!

But liking birth control and liking the government forcing a church to provide it are two entirely separate issues. People are (rightly) suspicious of the Church when it tries to get involved in the government but I wish they would be as equally suspicious of government when it tries to get involved in the Church. If we're going to have separation of Church and state than lets do so and not have it be a one way separation.

What are you talking about? There is a big difference between not liking the process and not participating.

I want a less obtrusive government - and as such, I'll vote for those who have a platform of keeping government out of the private lives of individuals and stop spending my money.

When an organization affiliated with a church is an employer of non-believers (meaning persons who believe something other than the particular church's faith), it should completely be required to act like any other employer. Those people should not be subject to the government allowing their employer to impose religious beliefs on them. I am actually quite surprised that so many people think the employer's religious freedom is more important than the employees' rights.

Also, keep in mind that the government is not 'forcing the church to provide birth control'. The government is forcing the church to include birth control coverage as part of basic preventative medicine in the health insurance plans for employees who work at church-affiliated organizations and may or may not follow the faith of the church in question.

As a side note to this, when did it become part of a church's role to force its flock to follow its rules? I was under the impression that the role of a church was to provide the rules and ask people to follow them because you go to Hell (or wherever) if you don't. If the Bishops don't want to use birth control, yay for them, they don't have to. If I, person who is not a Catholic Bishop, want to use birth control, that has nothing to do with them or their religious beliefs, even if I work at a hospital that happens to be a Catholic affiliated organization.

Agri, that's a long list of questions, and I don't think I even understand the beer analogy completely.

"we should all stay as far away from politics as possible" sounds to me a lot like advocating not participating. but maybe you meant "we" as "all you liberal scum"

Agri, the issue isn't where you can get contraceptives, it's about insurance requirements for your employer. It would be, in your beer analogy, like your employer running a blood alchohol test every morning before work and firing everyone who registered that they had anything to drink in the last 3 days.

Okay, not quite that severe but since nobody's employer pays for tehir drinks its as close as I could get...