I watched your segment on this issue and would like to call your attention to two articles. One calling attention to this fight historically and the other to the current rule. I found these compelling because they seem to frame the battle with more data than is available in short segments.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Then this about the rules and repub madness:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/issue/

Perhaps this is more than meets the eye or being reported.

Loved your book!

There's an easy solution: comply or no longer receive government funds to discriminate against women's health. Perhaps start taxing the institutions, as well.

If the Catholic Church would rather shut down adoption agencies than allow same-sex couples to adopt, or shut down homeless shelters due to marriage equality in Maine, then they can - as Romney put it - stand on their own and no longer receive Federal money for their bigotry.

If the Church is that vaporous over this law, then perhaps they should reign in their own before decrying others. I think there's something in the bible about that; ya know, sliver in the eye versus a plank or whatever.

The Catholic Church had no moral problem with the countless priests that abused children. Therefore they have no right to be so morally indignant over being required for birth control to be included in insurance that covers employees.

In 1860 the Mormon Church abandoned its polygamy doctrine (although the leaders called it a revelation) it was in repsonse to US Law forbading polygamy. There are many examples, the first amendment nowithstanding, where a religious belief contradicts law in which case the law is still the law and must be obeyed.

I am an Obama supporter, but I am also glad to see one MSNBC show not blindly defend this action.

Wow... what an emotional response to a serious issue. moreover you did not add anything to the understanding of the issue. your analysis was nothing more then a ... you are not the boss of me in this issue wrapped in church cloth. Not a good job with this issue.

Who is buying health insurance?.... Me or the church?......

When you get to the bottom of the legal rules ... I sell my labor for a wage... which because of the current tax law treats portions of my wage differently. I then use these wages to purchase my own health insurance program. The theology or the philosophy or the prejudice of my employer should NOT effect my economic choices. This is not a church / state issue.

Should the Feds spec out a minimum basket of services, Yes... and the Supreme Court will rule on this this summer.

Who has constitutional protection... individuals... or institutions.? Institutions (corporations) are NOT people.... I believe the constitution speaks to individuals.

I understand the catholic teachings and their frustration with the flock's general dismissal of these specific teachings (98% of the flock use birth control).

The political question... could be framed... will voters expect insurance programs to treat viagra and birth control pills equally.

On the state v. church issue re birth control. Should Mormons be required to comply with polygamy laws? Similar dynamic or different? Is an establishment of religion to compel my obedience to church doctrine if it is different than my own religious belief when it is done through the agency of the state? The government by knuckling under to church pressure in matters of conscience is becoming an accessory after the fact, an agent of the church. If I have an employer which is church sponsored, does that employer have the right to compel me to embrace its religious doctrines as a condition of employment? Is this a form of discrimination any different than if it were based upon race, sex or any other characteristic?

This is a women's health issue. All my life women have had to pay more for health care than men--remember, Viagra is covered by most insurance plans already. Any Catholic institution which receives federal funding and employs peoples of all faiths has a moral duty to its employees to provide preventive care which includes contraceptives for women. If they do not, they merely prove, once again, that women are considered second class. The Church can teach what it believes to its parishioners and hope they agree, but it has no right to impose its beliefs on the women it employs.

Dear Chris Matthews,

I have had it with all of these men pontificating on what women should or should not be able to do with their bodies. What happened to the separation of church and state? This is the problem that I have with our country allowing this religious organizations to pick up "serving" the so called needy. Then they get to preach to us and deny us basic health care just because they disagree with it. Where will the line be drawn? In the past, churches had all sorts of things they wanted to deny Black people because they thought we did not deserve, it until the federal government said NO. Noncatholics who work for catholic institutions and schools should not have to beg for coverage that secular people get as a matter of regular business. If the churches do not want to do this work in the way the government prescribes, they should get out of that work and the government should provide the service, period! This is exactly why we need single payer health care so poor women can get all of the same medical services as everyone else.

Women have always been required to pay more for basic health care than men. Health insurance has always been tied to employment in this country. Those basic facts need to be stressed. If the Catholic Church employs people in institutions that employ non-Catholics, then the Church must provide preventive care for all. Let the employee decide. This is a basic women's health issue and the Catholic bishops are showing their political bias here--and they risk being seen, once again, as perfectly comfortable in keeping women in a second class status.

Should employers be able to deny their employees standard health care coverage based on their religious beliefs? No blood transfusion for you. No male doctors for you. This is ridiculous.

This just illustrates why health care needs to be attached to the citizen and not the employer. What ever happened to doctor patient confidentiality? Give us back our privacy, and take everyone else out of personal medical decisions.

Please help us all "grow up" and move this conversation out of wide-eyed, hot emotions. The Catholic Church is not in same league as smaller colleges or other institutions with faith-based preferences.

It is a fact that running hospitals has moved sharply out of the charitable arena into big business. So be it. The Catholic church is a huge player in the industry. Please look further into realities of how things work in their business entities. I lived in a city that whose two hospitals had been bought by catholic orders. They slowly bought out all facilities and eventually pretty much set policy for all doctors wanting to work in their buildings.

This is not a statement of bias. It is a request that people stop indulging emotions and look at the systems and how it is working. So far discussions I've heard here are more like loyalty food fights (frats and dorms), than intelligent inquiry into workings of how medical care gets dispensed and by whom, etc. Businesswise, these orders collaborate with each other and play hardball with physicians, institutions and patients. They are steely, astute business operators. Well, are they businesses whose bottom line can be impacted by satisfaction of their patients? Not in my experience. They are a nonprofit church owning and running medical facilities as businesses.

Please bring real conversation to this topic!

Am I crazy or are you all wrong? Doesn't this law say that the Insurance of employees of Catholic run organizations should cover contraception? The insurance pays. not the Church or does the Catholic church have church-owned insurance companies that insure all employees Catholic or not? Doesn't the church have insurance from the big companies?. You're acting as it people will be taking cash directly from the Church to pay for birth control. As I said, Am I crazy? or have you explained it all wrong.

Perhaps I missed this in your segment, but I didn't hear any discussion about how the rule on contraceptive coverage came to be. It was the result of a recommendation to the HHS by the Institute of Medicine, an independent panel of doctors and medical researchers. They studied the issue and concluded that birth control is not simply a convenience, but medically necessary "to ensure women's health and well-being." The panel cited a number of factors in its recommendation:

• that half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, and of those, 40% result in abortion;
• that providing contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions;
• that studies indicate women with unintended pregnancies "are more likely to be depressed and to smoke, drink and delay or skip prenatal care, potentially harming fetuses and putting babies at increased risk of being born prematurely and having low birth weight." (reported in NY Times, 1/29/12)

You also didn't make the distinction that I understand HHS has made in terms of religious exemptions: institutions which are primarily religious, whose employees primarily share the same religion, and which primarily serve people of the same faith are exempt from the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage.

It's only institutions that serve a secular or partially secular purpose, employ people of diverse religious backgrounds, and in the case of universities enroll students of a variety of religious faiths that must comply with the rule.

I am suspicious of the practice of hiding behind religious doctrine to escape the secular mandate of the state. This is the domain of the state. With all of the catholic hospitals is it not possible as a substitute for providing payments for insurance for birth control to simply provide health care to their employees?

Why won't the church come forward and say we won't support erectile dysfunction drugs? I'll tell you why, the church's hierarchy is comprised of MEN!! They have no right to tell a woman she can't use contraception whether it is in pill or device form. Most catholic women either get a hysterectomey or use contraception. Insurance is Insurance. If the Catholic church wants to provide insurance to their employees, then they need to provide the plan AS IT IS OUTLINED. The Obama Administration has given a lot of money to Catholic Charities. If the Catholic Church allows rich boy Mitt and Newt boy the crook as well a Ricky S. make an issue out of this, then shame on them! They need to justify why they would support any of those fools who don't give a damn for the poor. Their charge is to continue their big tax breaks!!

I totally disagree with you on this. Church's are not being forced to provide birth control, companies are. These institutes do not employ only Catholics. Why should others be forced to abide by a religion they don't follow? All those Catholics who ignore their church's teachings (95%) get coverage through their employers, but they want to deny it to others. And let's not forget these institutions get plent of government money to run their programs. Finally, the church can hardly call themselves a moral authority when they covered up for pedophiles around the world. You make one exception for one organization, and then there will be millions around the country and the whole bill will go down the tubes.

Mr. Matthews has a great show. He is using his show to push his own religious view. I find myself closing up on this subject. I am hoping to hear the damaging effect of mixing religion and politics we have had since Reagan. This is just another step to usurp rights. This regulation does not apply to truly religious organization- the church. It also does not force catholics to take a benefit against their faith. It does require an employer to follow same rules as apply to other employers. Universities and hospitals, other charities also recive tax money. Congress attaches many conditions when giving tax money. Religious sponsership may become a favorite way for partisans to hijack the seperation clause. It is not just freedom to religion, but also from any.

Mr. Matthews has never addressed this angle. He is following the dictates of his church in a public forum. He can take the president to task for Superpacs. What does he thing of his own conflict here?

The issues don't stop here. What if there is a couple (straight or gay) in a civil marriage and one of those spouses is a worker at a Catholic Hospital. Perhaps they were barred from a Catholic marrriage because one of them is divorced or one is not Catholic. Is the Catholic Church condoning an "invalid" marriage if it allows the spouse to be covered under the policy of the worker at the Catholic Hospital? Can the Hospital deny health coverage to an employee who is not Catholic? Who was but is excommunicated? Since Marriage is one of the sacraments, isn't that as basic as contraception?

The affordable care act does not require the Catholic Church to pay for birth control, it requires that it provide insurance that can pay for birth control. There is a difference. No one is required to use birth control as a result of the action. So the Church can still urge their parishioners to not use birth control. All this law does is leave the choice in the hands of the individual. Good Catholics will choose not to use birth control.

As a church-going Protestant, I have never understood thehypocrisy of you Catholics…the Church is obsessed with sex (on all levels) and the congregants blissfully ignore the Church’s teachings when it comes to their own lives. Case in point on Hardball tonight:“90% of Catholics use birth control” and “3 is the new 5.”

And, BTW, I just toured all those Catholic universities you mentioned with my daughter (Georgetown, Boston College and, oh yeah, your alma mater, Holy Cross). Everyone we met, all day long, kept telling us that religion is “not an issue” and, “if you’re not Catholic, you don’t have to worry about Catholic dogma because these schools aren't really religious." Apparently, their whole spiel was just another hypocrisy?

Listen to you people. Do you not all have something in common!!?? Maybe the Christian faith?? What has happened mutual respect for one another as

Christians and as members of the human race?? It is disgusting that you all are so hatefull to one another. What ever happened to the "new eccuminism?

This is a situation where philisophy is getting in between the welfare of peple and the government trying to guarentee insurance services to those in need.

These services are needed! Plain and simple.

Seems the catholic pundits of MSNBC are pretty much on board with their paternalistic sexist church. Providing insurance in a fair way does not mean a woman has to use it. If a woman believes in the outdated, dark ages view of women pushed by the catholic church, she does not have to purchase birth control. On the other hand, women who choose to protect themselves and their health, regardless of some paternalistic sexist church leaders, should have that choice.

For republicans, "The Handmaid's Tale" was not a book. It was a goal. Apparently Mark Shield, Ej Dionne, Chris Matthews all are OK with bullying women in being treated unfairly.

Hey Chris, JFK was a Catholic !! Those wild and crazy catholics, ;) Chris, You missed a few things about Your hero in Your new book. Did You write a book about John Edwards that We haven't seen yet ? Don't give up on Marxism !!! Obama is "The One".