Brad - because they voted not to, and to set out a mandate instead. Of course, you know this already, and you saw the politics involved. The debate has been knocking around since Nixon proposed healthcare reforms.

Maybe you don't understand what I am saying. Why did the government think it was so important to say birth control services are provided, but not provide them? It is not a political DEM v REP question. Both parties vote for unfunded mandates. It is a money issue. The government is involved with so many aspects of our lives. A few of them are good. The ones that are unfunded are quite often an over-reach of the government.

My question is if it is so important why is it not funded.

bbauska

Why does the government (if it is so important to provide "access" to all!) choose to not provide these services? That way the access would be "available" to everyone, and it would not be the responsibility of businesses and employers to have to provide it if there is a moral objection (regardless of religious view).

A cogent arguement for single payer universal health insurance. Freeeing employers from having to manage health insurance OR make, what for them might be, morally dubious decisions. Leaving it up to the individual.
And its at the individual level that freedom is both best practiced and protected .
When any organization, Catholic Church or govenrment, seeks to limit the ability of the individual to make their own decisions ... then it bears careful scrutiny.
And in this case the Catholic Church is seeking to coerce its employees at affiliated organizations, who might be any religious denomination or non-religious, from an individual choice. Whats worse they are seeking special protection from the government to be able to continue limiting the freedom of choice of their employees. (Limiting in that, yes, they can still pay for contraception but they are forced to do so when everyone else doesn't have to do so.... )

And this answers the question of why the government has unfunded mandates how?

bbauska wrote:And this answers the question of why the government has unfunded mandates how?

It's called 'regulation'. This is not uncommon in other areas. It's basically saying:

"If you do 'Y', then you have to also do 'X' and not do 'Z'". It can be applied to all kinds of regulations. Such as:

"if you sell goods, you have to show what it is you are selling and clearly mark the price, and you can't be misleading when you do", or

"if you drive a car, you have to be insured at least for third party, and you can't drive a car without a license or without keeping it in a roadworthy condition", so...

"if you employ people, you have to provide health insurance for them (or pay a fine for not so doing), and that insurance can't be below a particular standard,

There's no particular reason why the government has to pay for 'X' as a result. Maybe it would be preferable, but not always.

Gonzaga University a Catholic university allows (embraces) co-ed dorms and allows alcohol consumption by students of age. Yay for no birth control!

Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."

"The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."

As a matter of fact, isn't he right? The post office is closed on 12/25.

RJ, please try not to interject facts.

There is ZERO problem with a candidate having religious views. There is a problem when a politician enacts policies that will mandates a specific religion to be followed.

Brad - so, what policies do that, then?

For example, are laws that allow X even if religion Y disapproves? Or it it more that laws that prohibit X because religion Y disapproves, or that disallow X while religion Y says you have to do it.

A politician having religious views is fine. I think people get uncomfortable about Santorum when he doesn't just want religious people in public space, but uses religion to determine his policy as well (which he may or may not enact, dpending on how much power he gets).

However, politicians who want to see more religion in politics tend to only think of it being their particular interpretation that gets through. There are many other religions and sects in the USA, and the danger is that some get trampled by the more vocal, or that we have to listen to all, however nutty they are.

I quote from the Constitution I pulled from my pocket:

1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the free of speech, or use of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Senator Santorum has just as much right to be in public office as anyone else. Religious views are not precluded from public office. That being said, the people of PA decided they wanted to go a different direction because of their "uncomfortableness". That is fine, and what politics are.

Personally, I would love to see a more wide scope of "religiosity" coming into politics. Not just Protestantism, but Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc... As long as the peaceful moralities are taught, and not specific tenets, how could that be a bad thing?

Do religions teach stealing is wrong? How about murder and adultery? These things can and should be taught. Does that make me a religious zealot to think that coveting is wrong?

Why do people make a big issue about the religiosity in the political arena, if there is nothing wrong with it?

Way to not answer the question.

I think it was answered, but let me be more succinct. The Government should make NO LAWS respecting the establishment of a religion.

That means: If Senator Santorum proposed legislation that all persons must take the Eucharist, I would be denouncing that. That would be wrong. If Gov. Romney proposed legislation that there be a mandatory school prayer, that would be wrong. If Pres. Obama proposed legislation that all peoples must follow the tenets of Rev. Wright's church, that would be wrong.

People can have whatever view they want. They can even practice that view by themselves. To legislate the establishment of a specific religion is the issue.

Congress opens the session with prayer. The oath of office occurs with a hand placed on the Bible. These are not wrong. If a person has a problem, they need not pray, or have the Bible used. It is a personal choice.

Answer enough for you. I hope I made it as simply clear as you needed.

I respect this position B. I wonder how it is then that the Catholic Church is being wronged in the enforcement of health insurance standards in businesses affiliated with the Church. (But aren't part of the Church)

They are free to preach against the use of contraception. What they aren't free to do, is use their religious beliefs to avoid responsiiblity for delivering the standards required by regulation of all businesses in the categories with which they affiliate their denomination.
The individual has a right to access of the standards provided under law. By claiming a moral exception, the Catholic Church attempts to force their beliefs on their employees.
If the moral exception is allowed isn't the govnerment establishing that the Catholic Church can ignore any laws if it claims a moral exception.... (Well any Church once the precedent is set.) And isn't that putting religion over government?
The Catholic Church should be able to sustain its moral authority without the use of coercion that they want the govenrment to provide them. It cannot, even within its adherents. 98% of Catholic women choose to make use of contraception at some point.
They should accept that when they participate in enterprises out side the Church itself, they must abide by the laws governing everyone and not set about using their suppossed morality as a way of avoiding responsibility for the law. If they cannot they should retreat from affiliation or participation in these enterprises. Same goes for Muslims, Mormons, Protestants etc.
By the way, in the United States the fastest growing stated religious affiliation is none. (Not atheists just no affiliation.)
Perhaps because more ad more people recognize that one can live a moral life without the prescriptions of the various faiths that often serve to divide society . They recognize, just as you do, that there are certain universal themes running through almost every religion and major philosophy....
Its just been the narrow interests of specific religions that the differences are made to divide. And I think its the introduction of all these religious "brands" that creates disharmony.
Americans like to talk about how the Pilgrims came to America to be able to worship freely. What many forget is that the Boston colony did not allow people the freedom to worship as they wanted. They expelled from the colony anyone who was the least individual in their practice. And they banned the celebration of Christmas.... One must guard against the special inclusion of any specific religion because by definition it excludes all others.. That should be the lesson learnt from the Pilgrims of Massachussetts.

Are you saying Atheism is a religion?

The Catholic Church is not prohibiting birth-control services. Please show me ONE instance where they are. Just because an employer chooses to not pay for something, does not mean it is removing access. I know you disagree that point, but I have yet to see evidence from you. Your argument is self defeating. You say 98% of Catholic women use contraception at sometime. How is that removing access?

I agree that any one religion (including atheism!) should not preclude the worship of another as long as that religion is peaceably worshiping. I am afraid the religion of Atheism is having too much power over the Government right now.