I hope people realize these posts are not news stories; they're propaganda pieces by the Catholic church. And more proof the church has never cared about women.

For a news story on the suit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/catholic-groups-file-suits-on-contraceptive-coverage.html

It would seem that Ms. Defino's definition of "caring" is that I have to pay for her to use chemicals that disrupt the natural functions of her body.

My definition of "caring" is much different. If Ms. Defino wishes to do herself harm - I may not be able to stop her - but at least I should not be compelled to pay for something I believe is immoral.

Sorry, Jeff. This post isn't news. It's basically a press release by the church masquerading as a news story. The NYT news pages aren't "slanted." The opinions are liberal, no doubt.

You can also read it about it here. "Defending religious freedom" is a one-side perspective.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/21/catholic-organizations-across-country-file-suit-against-contraception-mandate/

I hope the Church wins.
Forcing us to use taxpayer dollars for inappropriate procedures is wrong.
Any person who wants birth control can do what they want, but not with my money collected with the force of law and punishment.

"Taxpayer dollars" are not involved in this issue.

There is no "free" care and no tax payer dollars. This is about employer-sponsored health insurance. Workers and employees share the cost of their health care premiums. The mandate is to over the coverage as part of preventive services for which there is no co-pay. The Catholic employers don't want to comply. Special provisions were already made for them, which they have rejected.

to offer, I mean. not to over.

This lawsuit is all about the Roman Catholic Church imposing its will on its institutions that hire non-Roman Catholics. Yes, imposing its religion on everyone else. The Church may win the lawsuit, but it's a loser--on many levels--regarding women.

JJ

United States Congress (not Obama) rejected the notion that a company can pick and choose what coverage to exclude from its medical plan when it voted down the Blunt Amendment.

Republican Lisa Murkowski originally voted for the amendment but then had a major change of heart after hearing from her constituents. You can read about it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/lisa-murkowski-blunt-amendment_n_1323427.html

@Theresa:

Did you read the link to FactCheck.org ???

Yes, did you? They said there was no evidence that premiums would go up, and no evidence they wouldn't. I also didn't find their analysis rooted in the context of the rest of the law, which, as I said, caps profits.

It also requires reviews of premium increases, which has never happened before.

@Theresa;
"This author of this piece, Brie Hall, is a communications manager for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. That should be posted somewhere by Patch. She gets paid to do PR for the church. Patch should seek out alternative views and not present this as faux news."

It appears that she is doing her job I guess? It looks like all the authors who use the "Local Voices" section do NOT identify who they are with and Patch does not either, nor does anybody offer an official counterpoint to any of them.

For example Ben Cardin, just a picture of Ben and his name and his story......no identity given, no counterpoint offered. I suppose it's up to the Patch reader's to question them?

Lastly........I don't think anybody is considering this "hard news". You may find this hard to believe, but there are some folks out there who are able to figure it out, but just in case they can't...........you're doing a fine job of "splaining" :)

@Shaun: when the writer is being paid to write and post and gives a one-side view of something, his or her employer should be disclosed. This is no different than when you identify the gentleman who writes a column about real estate sales or the woman who posts items on health lifestyles from Shady Grove Adventist. No different also from including a bio of the mom who writes about having an autistic child. I also notice that this post, contrary to the other one written by this archdiocese employee, is not marked "opinion" as her previous post on the HHS Secretary was. You can see that here:

http://rockville.patch.com/search/blog_posts
If Patch is to be a respected as a journalistic endeavor it needs to fairly, accurately and consistently present information about its so-called "bloggers" and actively seek to present all sides of an issue. I certainly see Huff Po, your mothership, doing that. Why can't Patch?

I also don't see how this posts in any way fit the definition of "blogger," according to your descriptions. They more fit the definition of propaganda that only serves the aims of the employer of the paid writer.

"Blog On Patch
Share what you know. Ask what you don't.

Patch blogs give anyone from gardening enthusiasts to community leaders to local business owners the power to easily share ideas, expertise, questions, or even just a cool photo with the whole neighborhood...."

Which bloggers? Do you work for Patch? As I already wrote, the author of this post works for the Archdioceses of Washington, the subject of this one-sided post. Any reasonable person would conclude she was paid to write this as part of her job duties.

I work for Patch. Bloggers do not. That is all I want to clear up.

That was already clear and not what the conversation is about. I asked if you worked for Patch so maybe you could weigh in on why the author of this post wasn't identified as an employee of the Catholic church. If a blogger is paid by his or her employer d to post on Patch and elsewhere, shouldn't Patch identify them as such? And provide basic information about all bloggers? Without a bio and with a byline, Brie Hall actually looks like she works for Patch.

Hello Theresa,

If one clicks on Brie Hall's name at the top of the page, one will arrive at a list of her blogs. To the left of that list, click on "Profile Home," and you'll get this:

"About Brie"—"Communications Manager for the Office of Media and Public Relations of the Archdiocese of Washington"

The identifications of bloggers are in their profile pages.

-Laura L. Thornton, editor of Chevy Chase Patch

Should we identify religious freedom for religiously-affiliated organizations as the ability of those organizations to determine what their employees believe and how they act or as their ability to encourage a particular viewpoint?

Can you say fussy !!! :))

What if an employer who does not believe in contraception coverage employs people who believe that contraception coverage is part of their religious freedom? Why would the employer's belief system override that of the employees? Who gets to determine what people should believe (presuming that people act according to their beliefs?)

No - there is no correlation between religious freedom and the provision of benefits free of charge. The problem this article sets out is one of religious freedom and its infringement by the federal government. Unfortunately the author does not define religious freedom but offers a line of complaint that suggests that religious freedom is something unique to established religious organizations and that these particular organizations can impose their beliefs on their employees, whether the employees choose to adhere to these beliefs or not. Creating special interest insurance pools might or might not be viable, but employers need to be respectful of the beliefs of all their employees, even if they constitute a minority.

I'm not sure I understand how failing to provide contraception coverage to an employee imposes the employer's beliefs on the employee. Under the law, the employee is still free to procure contraception with her own resources - thus is not prevented from by the employer's beliefs from doing what she wants.

On the contrary, if the employee forces (by dint of federal regulation) the employer to pay for her contraception coverage, she is imposing her beliefs on the employer who may have religious objections to the practice.

But I agree, religious freedom is not something that is unique to established religious organizations. Individuals - such as owners of a private business which has no connection to any organized religious activity - should have the freedom to practice their business in accord with their religious beliefs.

Freedom of religion = my freedom from your religion.
Freedom of religion = my freedom from my employer's religion.
I should have the same choices as everyone else regardless of my employer's religion. End of story.