Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 29, 2012, 11:21:06 AM
-
Here Is The Anti-Obama Administration Letter That Was Read To Almost Every Catholic Sitting In Church Today
Michael Brendan Dougherty | 12 minutes ago | 207 | 1
The Catholic Church is fighting mad with the Obama Administration, and nearly every Catholic sitting in a pew this weekend heard the reasons why.
The Health and Human Services Department recently announced it will require all employers (with few exceptions) to provide health insurance to their employees which includes subsidized contraception, sterilization and coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.
This meant that religious institutions, like Catholic colleges and hospitals, or other Christian institutions would be compelled to violate their conscience by cooperating with that which they believe to be wrong. Currently many of these institutions purchase health-insurance plans which do not provide free coverage of these services.
To give an analogy, it would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justified it by saying that protein is healthy, many Jews don't follow Kosher laws, and many non-Jews go to those delis anyway. The law wouldn't technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.
Well, the Catholic Church isn't lying down and taking this lying down.
In thousands of parish this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impactsthe Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right toreligious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of thosepeople — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week thatalmost all employers,
including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, andcontraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.
In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule isoverturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drophealth coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture,
only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.
And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-is-the-anti-obama-administration-letter-that-was-read-to-almost-every-catholic-sitting-in-church-today-2012-1#ixzz1ksOyI6Y0
________________________ _______________________
I have ZERO sympathy for the church in this and actually find it funny. These idiots supported obamacare based upon their "social justice" bullshit and believed Obama could be trusted. Fucking idiots.
They made a deal w the devil and now are upset that the devil did not keep his word? Really?
These snakes in the church should rot in Kenya along w Obama.
-
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck01.27.10.html
They supported ObamaCare. Fuck em.
They made a deal with the devil and need to live by it.
-
First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored.
________________________ _________
FNG morons. This is the type of bs that caused me to leave the church altogether.
Yeah, lets a pray obama is going to do the right thing! How stupid and naive are these fools?
-
They supported ObamaCare. Fuck em.
They made a deal with the devil and need to live by it.
lol, good point.
-
lol, good point.
I'm not kidding.
Its why I am not a church goer any longer. The Church because little more than a pipe organ for the communist left and only now complain? expecially after they supported obamacare in the first place?
Really? Fuck them. No. Fuck them 100 times over because those gullible pieces of garbage supported obamacare and helped marshal support for its passage in the place.
They were warned many times over and placed "social justice" over individual rights. They made a corrupt evil deal w Obama like the others did, and now act surprised when the devil himself decieved them?
Oh cry me a freaking river!!! I'm sorry, I actually in a sick sort of way enjoy this enormously.
-
We Are All Abortionists Now (If Obamacare is allowed to stand. This clash was intended)
National Review ^ | 01/30/2012 | By James C. Capretta
The decision last week by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reject the appeals of scores of religious leaders and retain a very narrow “religious” exemption from Obamacare’s so-called contraception mandate has ignited an uproar among Catholic leaders, as well it should — because it’s hard to fathom a government dictate more offensive than this one.
Here’s how we got where we are: Obamacare includes within its massive delegation of power to the federal government the authority to define what constitutes “preventive services” that must be covered by all health-insurance plans sold and purchased in the United States, including plans sponsored by employers. Services defined by HHS as preventive for purposes of this provision are required under the new law to be covered by the insurer or employer with no charge to the insurance plan’s enrollees.
Last August, in the course of writing a rule that would determine preventive health services for women, HHS decided that free contraception and sterilization services are a must. As a practical matter, that means all health-insurance plans sold in the United States in the very near future will include full coverage of products that terminate pregnancies, since some products classified by the FDA as contraceptives — and thus covered under the HHS definition — also act as abortifacients. While it is true that many insurance plans cover such products today, that’s mainly been the choice of the insurers and employers sponsoring the plans. HHS has now made such coverage obligatory nationwide, thus forcing tens of millions of pro-life Americans to pay for “services” with their health-insurance premiums that they find morally objectionable. (Grandfathered plans are exempt from this and other Obamacare rules, but the number qualifying for grandfathered status is expected to decline precipitously in the next couple of years.)
Bad as all that is, it gets worse. Not only must Catholics who work for non-Catholic employers pay for such products with their premiums, HHS also wants religious employers to cover such products in their health plans. Knowing that Catholic leaders and others would strongly object to this requirement, HHS included in the regulation issued last August a narrow exemption from this requirement for employers that are basically houses of worship. Much larger religiously affiliated institutions, such as Catholic universities, hospitals, and charitable enterprises, do not fit within the HHS exemption.
Not surprisingly, Catholic leaders were more than alarmed by the promulgation of this rule and have spent the time since its publication imploring the Obama White House and HHS to reverse course and loosen the exemption definition so that the full array of Catholic institutions and social-service agencies could get out from under this onerous and pernicious requirement. Among the more prominent groups that have weighed in on this are Catholic Charities USA, the University of Notre Dame, and the network of Catholic hospitals that serve millions of U.S. patients every year.
This is not exactly a who’s-who list of the Catholic Right. If ever there were a group of Catholic institutions to which you would think that the Obama administration would want to be accommodating, this would be it.
And so, what was the administration’s reaction to the pleadings of these friendly leaders? Basically, the back of the hand. Last Friday, Secretary Sebelius announced that religious organizations that do not fit within the previously stated exemption criteria will have only one additional year to comply with the regulation’s requirements.
On one level, this was a truly stunning decision. Everything the administration has been doing in recent months has been political, with reelection plainly the primary motivation. But on the surface, this looks to be anything but a smart political move. With one decision, the Obama White House has made it all but impossible to sustain a serious Catholic argument in its favor. The veneer of religious tolerance, so carefully cultivated by Obama in the 2008 campaign, has now been completely stripped away.
On another level, however, there’s nothing at all surprising about what has transpired. Indeed, with Obamacare, it was inevitable — only a matter of time.
The central purpose of Obamacare — and the reason it was and is so strenuously opposed by so many Americans — is to transfer all of the critical decisions about how American health care operates to the federal government. Despite what the president contends, it is a federal takeover. The federal bureaucracy is now in the driver’s seat.
And, with the federal government now calling all of the shots, it is a foregone conclusion that a decidedly secularist and utilitarian point of view will be pervasive in everything that is done. It is simply beyond the capacity of the modern federal government to even consider arguments questioning the wisdom of governmental policies promoting free and abundant contraception. Indeed, it is an article of faith in the modern bureaucratic context that pushing such “prevention” measures onto the American public is one more step on the long march to a more just and humane society.
This is the environment in which we live. The hard truth is that the federal government cannot be trusted today with these kinds of decisions, and there’s no prospect of that changing anytime soon. That’s a big reason why Obamacare should never have been allowed to pass in the first place. Just the sight of Catholic leaders’ being forced to go begging before federal officials ought to be enough to convince most Americans that handing over so much power over such sensitive matters to the federal government was a terrible, terrible mistake.
If the Sebelius decision is allowed to stand, large Catholic institutions all over the country will be forced to stop offering health coverage to their workers, because continuing to do so will be incompatible with their mission. And when they drop that coverage, they will be forced by Obamacare to pay huge fines to the federal government ($2,000 per worker at the outset). For a Catholic institution with 5,000 employees, that’s $10 million that won’t go toward helping the poor, taking care of patients, or educating future leaders.
It is possible that the Obama administration will pull a political stunt later this year and broaden the exemption to curry favor with some gullible voters just before the election. But even if that were to happen, the real lesson of this episode should not be lost on anyone. Obamacare has handed over immense power to a federal government that is essentially hostile to religious sentiments. That’s a very dangerous state of affairs. Job number one must be to reverse course and replace Obamacare with a program more consistent with our Constitution and values.
— James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He was an associate director at the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate
The Blaze ^ | 1-30-12 | Billy Hallowell
We’ve covered the Catholic Church’s ongoing battle with the Obama administration over contraception health care mandates for quite some time. Over the weekend, though, the stand-off took an unusual turn, as Catholic churches across America read a letter to congregants that perfectly encapsulated the church’s stance against the impending federal requirements.
The Church’s vocal arguments against the Obama administration are centered upon a Health and Human Services Department requirement that employers must include contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in health-care coverage. While this requirement doesn’t apply to houses of worship, it will force Catholic colleges, hospitals and other Christian groups to provide these drugs despite their faith-based opposition to them.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
-
5:05:49 PM
Obama’s ‘war on the church’
by Sheila Liaugminas | 26 Jan 2012 | (34)
This was an extraordinary provocation.
On the day after Pope Benedict warned the church in America about unprecedented political and cultural threats to religious freedom, the Obama adminstration issued a mandate that will force religious institutions to comply with health care rules profoundly against their fundamental moral beliefs.
The ACLJ was already preparing briefs for the Supreme Court hearing on the Obama healthcare legislation, based on the individual mandate that required citizens to purchase something, by federal law, for the first time. Now, that mandate requires them to purchase something that violates their moral conscience.
Never before has an American president so openly and wantonly disregarded the religious civil liberties of so many.
Last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would make final the rule mandating that insurance policies provide for contraceptive services, including sterilization, and drugs with an abortifacient mechanism of action.
With this rule, hundreds of religious colleges and hospitals, for example, will now be required –in fact, coerced — into providing insurance coverage for practices they believe to be morally wrong and violative of their religious beliefs. These institutions, which have educated citizens and cared for the infirm for hundreds of years, will now have to cave into the federal government or close their doors.
US Bishops conference president Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, responded time and again, Wednesday in an op-ed piece that ran in the WSJ and many of the nation’s larger newspapers.
Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government. When the Founding Fathers determined that the innate rights of men and women should be enshrined in our Constitution, they so esteemed religious liberty that they made it the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.
In particular, the Founding Fathers fiercely defended the right of conscience. George Washington himself declared: “The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them.” James Madison, a key defender of religious freedom and author of the First Amendment, said: “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”
Scarcely two weeks ago, in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs.
Yet the Obama administration has veered in the opposite direction. It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.
What readers from countries outside the US should understand for proper context, this is a radical departure from US law and custom.
Last August, when the administration first proposed this nationwide mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage, it also proposed a “religious employer” exemption. But this was so narrow that…even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.
Since then, hundreds of religious institutions, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens, have raised their voices in principled opposition to this requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching in their health plans. Certainly many of these good people and groups were Catholic, but many were Americans of other faiths, or no faith at all, who recognize that their beliefs could be next on the block. They also recognize that the cleverest way for the government to erode the broader principle of religious freedom is to target unpopular beliefs first.
Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now.
In one sweeping move, president Obama and his Catholic health secretary have succeeded in something no other groups or efforts or initatives or projects have been able to do: unite and galvanize Catholics on the right and left. It’s an amazing feat, really.
When Barack Obama secured his party’s nomination for president in 2008, one group of Democrats had special reason to cheer.
These were Democrats who were reliably liberal on policy but horrified by the party’s sometimes knee-jerk animosity to faith. The low point may have been the 1992 Democratic convention. There the liberal but pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Sr., was humiliated when he was denied a speaking slot while a pro-choice Republican activist from his home state was allowed.
With Mr. Obama, all this looked to be in the past…And Mr. Obama would go on to capture a majority of the Catholic vote.
Now, suddenly, we have headlines about the president’s “war on the Catholic Church.” Mostly they stem from a Health and Human Services mandate that forces every employer to provide employees with health coverage that not only covers birth control and sterilization, but makes them free. Predictably, the move has drawn fire from the Catholic bishops.
Less predictable—and far more interesting—has been the heat from the Catholic left, including many who have in the past given the president vital cover. In a post for the left-leaning National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winters minces few words. Under the headline “J’ACCUSE,” he rightly takes the president to the woodshed for the politics of the decision, for the substance, and for how “shamefully” it treats “those Catholics who went out on a limb” for him.
The message Mr. Obama is sending, says Mr. Winters, is “that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us.”
Mr. Winters is not alone. The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he “cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience”—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of “civil disobedience” and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.
In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That’s the same understanding two of the president’s own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school’s First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.
A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an “unnecessary government intervention” that puts many organizations such as his in an “untenable position.”
Here’s just part of what he means by “untenable”: Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.
The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to “shove my rosary beads” down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party’s positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?
Catholic liberals appreciate that this HHS decision is more than a return to the hostility that sent so many Catholic Democrats fleeing to the Republican Party these past few decades. They understand that if left to stand, this ruling threatens the religious institutions closest to their hearts—those serving Americans in need, such as hospitals, soup kitchens and immigrant services.
Conservatives may enjoy the problems this creates for Mr. Obama this election year. Still, for those who care about issues such as life and marriage and religious liberty that so roil our body politic, we ought to wish Catholic progressives well in their intra-liberal fight. For we shall never arrive at the consensus we hope for if we allow our politics to be divided between a party of faith and a party of animosity to faith.
Stay tuned. This is ramping up by the day.
http://www.mercatornet.com/sheila_liaugminas/view/10223
-
January 31, 2012
Obama's Assault on Religious Conscience
Jim Yardley
The Catholic Church has taken a rather strong stand in opposing the Obama administration's requirement that the church provide contraceptive medicine and treatments as a required component of Obamacare. Apparently the administration is in accord with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in shrugging off concerns about the "conscience thing" that has forced the Catholic Church to denounce this policy from the pulpit during Mass on this past Sunday all over America.
The government is requiring the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and the congregants who are devout Catholics, to fund such contraceptive medicine for all lay employees of Catholic grammar schools, high schools, colleges and universities and for all of the Catholic Church's hospitals and any other church operation that employs lay people across the nation, regardless of their strong opposition on religious grounds.
The Church's stance on this issue is admirable, but not nearly dramatic enough; nor is it something that Obama and his merry band of Liberal-Progressive-Democrats would worry about. Right now they can just give a collective yawn, and assume that Catholics, a traditional Democrat voting block, will continue to vote for anyone with (D) after their name. This response is particularly valid when they know that the IRS and the Department of Justice would jump all over the church if there was a "Don't Vote for Obama" sermon given from the pulpit. No church of any denominations is allowed to make such overt political endorsements under the threat of losing their tax-exempt status.
The Church has a way to seriously threaten the administration and still not lose their tax exempt status. I'm surprised that it hasn't already been voiced somewhere in the media, considering how disruptive it would be to the entire nation.
The Catholic Church maintains the largest private education organization in the country. Currently there are 1,489,000 primary school students within the Catholic school system, and an additional 516,500 secondary school students. That is a total, for those of you without a calculator handy, 2,065,500 kids in Catholic schools.
Suppose, just suppose, those two million plus kids were told that in the near future the school would be closing because the Church refused to remain open and be forced to fund contraceptive services for the lay faculty. It would be a matter of conscience, and who could say that it was anything but adherence to their faith? Even Jeremiah Wright would be hard pressed to say that their actions were not a matter of conscience.
The parents of those two million kids would be up in arms, though. And to be honest, there would be very few parents who, in addition to paying school taxes for someone else's kid to go to public school, dip into their own funds to pay even more to educate their kids in the beliefs and morals attendant to going to a religious school without strongly held views themselves. It wouldn't be likely that those parents who spend a fair amount of money to send their kids to such a school would disagree strongly with the Pope.
So who would they take their anger out on? Probably not the local priests and nuns. Probably not the local bishop. Politicians? Well they are local, they are available, and ultimately they are the proximate cause of the schools shutting down.
You know who else would be up in arms? The local board of education. The most recent statistic for the cost of education for grades kindergarten through high-school indicates that it costs $11,000 per student per year for public schooling. And with over two million kids leaving parochial schools all over the nation, local school districts would have to supplement their budgets by an aggregate cost of $22.7 billion annually. That's just under twenty-three billion dollars. That's billion with a "B." That's how much more the local school boards, state governments and Washington will have to shell out to educate these additional millions of students.
On top of that, the Church could also advise the governments at the local and state levels that effective on some date in the near future, every Catholic hospital will stop accepting patients.
Now in addition to the nearly twenty-three billion that will be needed for the children that will overwhelm the school system, where will the money come to fund hospital expansions, build new school facilities or buy additional school buses to name just a few ancillary, but costly, expenses? Where will the money come from to fund additional unemployment benefits for laid off teachers, nurses, lab technicians, maintenance workers, and so on?
That would an effective way to get the government to understand how seriously Catholics take the "conscience thing", don't you think?
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller for manufacturing firms, a Vietnam veteran and an independent voter. Jim blogs at jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com
Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/obamas_assault_on_religious_conscience.html
-
Bishop: Obama Administration Is Telling Catholics ‘To Hell With You’
CNS News ^ | 1-31-12 | Terrence Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - Roman Catholic Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh says the Obama administration is telling American Catholics: “To Hell with you.”
“The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’” the bishop said in a column posted on his diocesan website. “There is no other way to put it.”
The bishop was responding to a regulation, finalized by Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Jan. 20, that orders all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives--including those that induce abortions--without any fees or co-pay.
The regulation includes an exemption for “religious employers.” But to qualify for this exemption, the employer must primarily serve members of its own faith, primarily employ members of its own faith, and primarily focus on inculcating the tenets of that faith—a rubric that would not apply to Catholic hospitals, universities, or charitable organizations.
There is no exemption at all for individual citizens or private businesses.
The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics cannot be involved in them. After the regulation was first announced in August, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic lay leaders urged the administration to rescind it while pointing out that it would require Catholics to act against their consciences and their faith and was thus a violation of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
Last fall, the Catholic bishops called the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and took the unusual step of asking local pastors to urge parishioners from the pulpit to contact HHS and ask that the regulation be rescinded. Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, personally met with President Barack Obama in November to explain the Catholic Church’s objections to the regulation.
But a week ago Friday, Sebelius announced that the regulation would take effect for individuals and private businesses as of Aug. 1 of this year. She said that religiously affiliated non-profit organizations—such as Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations—would be given until Aug. 1, 2013 to “adapt” to the regulation, but then they would be required to adhere to it also.
“It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face,” Bishop Zubik wrote of the administration’s decision to force Catholics to act against their faith.
“Let’s be blunt,” said Bishop Zubik. “This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.
“This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone--not only Catholics; not only people of all religion,” said the bishop. “At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens.”
“Last September I asked you to protest those guidelines to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services, and contact your political leadership in the federal government,” said Bishop Zubik. “I asked that you request that this flawed mandate be withdrawn because of its unprecedented interference in the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of the Catholic community, and our basic democratic process.
“You did,” said the bishop. “And you were joined by Catholics throughout the country (and many others as well) who raised their voices against the mandate, raised their voices against a meaningless religious exemption.
“On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration answered you and me,” said Bishop Zubik. “The response was very simple: ‘To Hell with You.’”
“Kathleen Sebelius and through her, the Obama administration,” the bishop wrote, “have said ‘To Hell with You’ to the Catholic faithful of the United States, to Hell with your religious beliefs, to Hell with your religious liberty, to Hell with your freedom of conscience.”
Bishop Zubik said the Catholic Church cannot submit to this regulation and urged Catholics to again tell President Obama, HHS Secretary Sebelius and members of Congress to rescind it.
“They have given us a year to adapt to this rule,” he said. “We can’t! We simply cannot! Write to the president. Write to Secretary Sebelius. Write to our Senators. Write to those in Congress.”
Bishop Zubik was far from alone in condemning the regulation and calling on Catholics to demand its reversal. Across the country over the past week, many Catholic bishops wrote similar articles and statements.
“The bell is tolling for religious liberty in America. All of us should listen well,” said Bishop James D. Conley, apostolic administrator of the Archdiocese of Denver.
Bishop Conley called on Catholics to fight the administration’s health-care plan.
“If plans go unchanged, the Catholic Church, acting through our Catholic institutions, will no longer have legal protection for the free exercise of religion,” he said in a column posted on the diocesan website. “Secretary Sebelius is wrong; this is not a year to ‘adapt.’ The Catholic Church will not adapt by violating fundamental elements of our faith. Instead of adapting, this is a year to unify, and to fight injustice and flagrant disregard for the institutional protection of our religious practice.
“The recent decision by HHS should make clear for all Catholics that under the proposed health care plan, the freedom to practice our religious faith is in jeopardy,” said Bishop Conley.
In a column for his diocesan newspaper, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles said the administration is trying to seize a power the U.S. government has never had.
“The Health Department justifies denying exemptions to Catholic charities, hospitals and colleges because it says they are not really ‘religious’ institutions. This may be the most troubling part of this new mandate,” said Archbishop Gomez. “Because in effect, the government is presuming it has the competence and authority to define what religious faith is and how believers should express their faith commitments and relationship to God in society. These are powers our government has never before assumed itself to have.”
“But the issues here go far beyond contraception and far beyond the liberties of the Catholic Church,” said Archbishop Gomez. “They go to the heart of our national identity and our historic understanding of our democratic form of government.”
Archbishop Gomez also called on Catholics to defend their faith and their religious freedom.
“But this is clear: Now is a time for Catholic action and for Catholic voices,” said Archbishop Gomez. “We need lay leaders to step up to their responsibilities for the Church’s mission. Not only to defend our faith and our rights as Catholics, but to be leaders for moral and civic renewal, leaders in helping to shape the values and moral foundations of America’s future.”
-
WH:'No Constitutional Rights Issue' in Forcing Catholics to Act Against Their Faith (!!!)
CNS News ^ | 01/31/2012 | Fred Lucas
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney says there are no “constitutional rights issues” involved in a regulation issued by the administration that requires all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
Because the Catholic Church holds that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and Catholic cannot be involved in them, the regulation--in combination with the Obamacare mandate that all Americans buy health insurance--will force American Catholics to choose between following the federal regulation or following the teachings of their church.
“I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” Carney said when asked at today’s White House briefing about the regulation.
“The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventative services,” Carney told reporters....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
JANUARY 31, 2012
Obama Sandbags the Archbishop
By Pat Buchanan
1/31/2012
At the end of Sunday mass at the church this writer attends in Washington, D.C., the pastor asked the congregation to remain for a few minutes.
Then, on the instructions of Cardinal Archbishop Donald Wuerl, the pastor proceeded to read a letter.
In the letter, the Church denounced the Obama administration for ordering all Catholic schools, hospitals and social services to provide, in their health insurance coverage for employes, free contraceptives, free sterilizations and free "morning-after" pills.
Parishioners were urged to contact their representatives in Congress to bring about a reversal of President Obama's new policy.
Now, not only is this a battle the Church must fight, it is a battle the Church can win if it has the moral stamina to say the course.
In forcing the Church to violate its own principles, Obama has committed an act of federal aggression, crossing the line between church and state to appease his ACLU and feminist allies, while humiliating the Catholic bishops.
Should the Church submit, its moral authority in America would disappear.
Now, undeniably, the church milquetoast of past decades that refused to discipline pro-abortion Catholics allowed the impression to form that while the hierarchy may protest, eventually it will go along to get along with a Democratic Party that was once home to most Catholics.
Obama's problem today is that not only is he forcing the Church to violate her conscience, he dissed the highest prelate in America.
In November, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, held what he describes as an "extraordinarily friendly" meeting with Obama at the White House.
The president assured the archbishop of his respect for the Church, and the archbishop came away persuaded Obama would never force the Church to adopt any policy that would violate her principles.
Ten days ago, Obama sandbagged the archbishop.
He informed Cardinal-designate Dolan by phone that, with the sole concession of the Church being given an extra year, to August 2013, to comply, the new policy, as set down by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will be imposed. All social and educational institutions of the Catholic church will offer health insurance covering birth control, or face fines.
"In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences," said Archbishop Dolan, who went on:
"To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. ... This represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
Where do Obama and Sebelius get the power to do this?
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, the colloquial name for which is "Obamacare."
NARAL Pro-Choice America is celebrating the new policy. Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, calls it a "health care issue ... based on what's best for women's health." Others have argued that many Catholic women practice birth control.
But that Catholics choose to ignore doctrine does not justify the U.S. government imposing on Catholic institutions a policy that violates Catholic teaching.
Even Washington Post liberal E.J. Dionne, in a Jan. 30 column titled "Obama's Breach of Faith," charges that the president "threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus. ...
"Speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government ... the Church's leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings."
Why did Obama do it?
Facing a close race for a second term, Obama chose not to antagonize his left. Yet he must have known that siding with them meant leaving Archbishop Dolan with egg all over his face. Obama, calculatedly, came down on the side of those he believes to be more crucial to his re-election.
This affront should tell the Catholic hierarchy, if they did not already know, where they stand in the party of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Kathleen Sebilius. And where they sit -- in the back of the bus.
Yet if the bishops will look upon this crisis of conscience, this insult, as an opportunity, they can effect its reversal and recapture a measure of the moral authority they have lately lost.
Not only should the bishops file suit in federal court against the president and Sebelius for violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, they should inform the White House that no bishop will give an invocation at the Democratic Convention.
Then, they should inform the White House that in the last two weeks of the 2012 campaign, priests in every parish will read from the pulpit at Sunday mass a letter denouncing Obama as anti-Catholic for denying the Church its right to live according to its beliefs.
If Obama loses the Catholic vote, he loses the election.
The White House will come around, fast. Rely upon it.
Pat Buchanan
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
First, They Came for the Catholics
Townhall.com ^ | February 1, 2012 | Michelle Malkin
Posted on February 1, 2012 6:55:45 AM EST by Kaslin
President Obama and his radical feminist enforcers have had it in for Catholic medical providers from the get-go. It's about time all people of faith fought back against this unprecedented encroachment on religious liberty. First, they came for the Catholics. Who's next?
This weekend, Catholic bishops informed parishioners of the recent White House edict forcing religious hospitals, schools, charities and other health and social service providers to provide "free" abortifacient pills, sterilizations and contraception on demand in their insurance plans -- even if it violates their moral consciences and the teachings of their churches.
NARAL, NOW, Ms. Magazine and the Feminist Majority Foundation all cheered the administration's abuse of the Obamacare law to ram abortion down pro-life medical professionals' throats. Femme dinosaur Eleanor Smeal gloated over the news that the administration had rejected church officials' pleas for compromises: "At last," she exulted, the left's goal of "no-cost birth control" for all had been achieved.
As always, tolerance is a one-way street in the Age of Obama. "Choice" is in the eye (and iron fist) of the First Amendment usurper.
Like the rising number of states who have revolted against the individual health care mandate at the ballot box and in the courts, targeted Catholics have risen up against the Obamacare regime. Arlington (Va.) Bishop Paul Loverde didn't mince words, calling the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services order "a direct attack against religious liberty. This ill-considered policy comprises a truly radical break with the liberties that have underpinned our nation since its founding." Several bishops vowed publicly to fight the mandate.
Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Mich., asserted plainly: "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law."
It's not just rabid right-wing politicos defying the Obama machine. Pro-life Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania denounced the "wrong decision." Left-leaning Bishop Robert Lynch threatened "civil disobedience" in St. Petersburg, Fla., over the power grab. Lefty Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote that Obama "botched" the controversy and "threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus" by refusing to "balance the competing liberty interests here."
White House press secretary Jay Carney blithely denied on Tuesday that "there are any constitutional rights issues" involved in the brewing battle. Yet, the Shut Up and Hand Out Abortion Pills order undermines a unanimous Supreme Court ruling issued just last week upholding a religious employer's right to determine whom to hire and fire. And two private colleges have filed federal suits against the government to overturn the unconstitutional abortion coverage decree.
Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the nonprofit law firm The Becket Fund, which is representing the schools, boiled it down for Bloomberg News: "This is not really about access to contraception. The mandate is about forcing these religious groups to pay for it against their beliefs."
How did we get here? The first salvo came in December 2010, when the American Civil Liberties Union pushed HHS and its Planned Parenthood-championing secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions in violation of their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn.
The ACLU called for a litigious fishing expedition against Catholic hospitals nationwide that refuse to provide "emergency" contraception and abortions to women. In their sights: Devout Phoenix Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted, who revoked the Catholic status of a rogue hospital that performed several direct abortions, provided birth control pills and presided over sterilizations against the church's ethical and religious directives for health care.
The ACLU and the feminists have joined with Obama to threaten and sabotage the First Amendment rights of religious-based health care entities. The agenda is not increased "access" to health care services. The ultimate goal is to shut down health care providers -- Catholic health care institutions employ about 540,000 full-time workers and 240,000 part-time workers -- whose religious views cannot be tolerated by secular zealots and radical social engineers.
Is it any surprise their counterparts in the "Occupy" movement have moved from protesting "Wall Street" to harassing pro-life marchers in Washington, D.C., and hurling condoms at Catholic school girls in Rhode Island? Birds of a lawless, bigoted feather bully together.
-
Kincaid: Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama
By Cliff Kincaid January 30, 2012 1:31 pm
Text Size: A A A
My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.
The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.
At a time when the media are full of reports about who is ahead and behind in the polls, and who will win the next Republican presidential primary, this incredible uprising in the Catholic Church is something that could not only overshadow the political campaign season, but also may have a major impact on the ultimate outcome—if Republicans know how to handle it. This matter goes beyond partisan politics to the growing perception of an unconstitutional Obama Administration assault on religious freedom. To hear the Catholic Bishops and Priests describe it, our constitutional republic and our freedoms hang in the balance.
The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”
The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”
Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”
So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.
Support for the latter explanation comes in the form of the Obama Administration’s efforts to co-opt the Catholic Church, primarily through appointing nominal Catholics to high-level positions in government and keeping funding going to the church for “social justice” causes. Another player in this effort is the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros, an atheist who nevertheless has found groups that are “Catholic in name only” to accept his financial largesse. These groups, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, are designed to give the impression that Catholics are less concerned about issues like stopping abortion and protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage than passing government health care. The Obama/Soros gamble may be backfiring.
It’s true that the bishops went along with Obama’s health care scheme, even lobbying on its behalf. But now they seem to be realizing that the plan was a Trojan Horse designed to force population control measures on the people of the United States. It will be difficult for the bishops to continue working with the administration on other issues, like immigration. They have drawn a line in the sand. They cannot back down.
Father Larry Swink of Jesus The Divine Word Catholic Church in Huntingtown, Maryland, is not alone in his tough language. Pittsburgh Bishop David A. Zubik posted a letter on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh’s website that said, “It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’ There is no other way to put it.” He added, “This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.”
You know it’s serious when the bishops are talking about heaven and hell.
Indeed, Fr. Swink opened his discussion of what he described as the evil nature of the Obama Administration by reading from scripture about Jesus casting out demons. He saw the order on health care coverage as the start of religious persecution. The congregation joined him in calls of “Amen” when he challenged them to stand tall with the church.
You cannot expect the secular Washington Post to go along with such rhetoric. But even its liberal editorial writer saw the ramifications of the health care order, perhaps anticipating the confrontation that we now see developing. From the point of view of this liberal paper, the Obama Administration is not only undermining religious freedom but risking a major backlash to its overall “progressive” agenda and even a second term in office.
Some may see this battle as just another church-state dust-up that will be resolved through litigation. But when apocalyptic imagery is used, such as what I heard at my church on Sunday, one must wonder if there is an awakening on the part of the Catholic community and if there is something else going on here besides politics as usual. In short, is the Catholic Church beginning to finally recognize the real nature of the Obama Administration?
---
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
Rate this post:
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The Church against Obamacare, cont’d
Power Line ^ | January 31, 2012 | Scott Johnson
Posted on February 1, 2012 5:23:00 AM EST by yoe
(Michael Gerson considers ) the implications of the Obama administration’s betrayal of its Catholic allies in its adoption of Obamacare regulations requiring the provision of benefits including sterilization, contraception and abortifacients. He singles out three Obama supporters for consideration:
Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.
Consider Catholicism’s highest-ranking elected official, Vice President Biden. Biden had encouraged engagement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on conscience rights. Now he will be remembered as the Catholic cover for the violation of Catholic conscience. Betrayal is always an inside job.
Consider Catholicism’s most prominent clerical leader, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Dolan had pursued a policy of engagement with the administration. In November, he met face to face with Obama, who was earnestly reassuring on conscience protections. On Jan. 20, during a less-cordial phone conversation, Obama informed Dolan that no substantial concession had been made. How can Dolan make the argument for engagement now?
Gerson’s anger is revealed in the middle of these three paragraphs. While Jenkins and Dolan are dupes, according to Gerson, Biden is a betrayer. That is a rather loaded charge in this context. Gerson then moves on to the larger point:
The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.
Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti- clericalism.
This is a provocative column. Gerson has a point here, but I think it is too particularized in his telling. Obamacare represents the progressive assault on limited constitutional government. If Catholic leaders have lent the assault a hand in the past, one can only hope that they awaken to the implications.
-
Obama plays his Catholic allies for fools
By Michael Gerson, Published: January 30
In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.
Preparing for the march, Catholic students gathered for Mass at Verizon Center. The faithful held vigil at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Knights of Columbus and bishops arrived to trudge in the cold along the Mall. All came to Washington in time for their mocking.
Catholic leaders are still trying to process the implications of this ambush. The president had every opportunity to back down from confrontation. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed a broad religious autonomy right rooted in the Constitution. Obama could have taken the decision as justification for retreat.
And it would have been a minor retreat. The administration was on the verge of mandating nearly universal contraceptive coverage through Obamacare without public notice. There would have been no controversy at all if President Obama had simply exempted religious institutions and ministries. But the administration insisted that the University of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s Hospital be forced to pay for the privilege of violating their convictions.
Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. The religious exemption granted by Obamacare is narrower than anywhere else in federal law — essentially covering the delivery of homilies and the distribution of sacraments. Serving the poor and healing the sick are regarded as secular pursuits — a determination that would have surprised Christianity’s founder.
Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer. It is the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government since the Blaine Amendment was proposed in 1875 — a measure designed to diminish public tolerance of Romanism, then regarded as foreign, authoritarian and illiberal. Modern liberalism has progressed to the point of adopting the attitudes and methods of 19th-century Republican nativists.
The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men:
Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.
Consider Catholicism’s highest-ranking elected official, Vice President Biden. Biden had encouraged engagement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on conscience rights. Now he will be remembered as the Catholic cover for the violation of Catholic conscience. Betrayal is always an inside job.
Consider Catholicism’s most prominent clerical leader, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Dolan had pursued a policy of engagement with the administration. In November, he met face to face with Obama, who was earnestly reassuring on conscience protections. On Jan. 20, during a less-cordial phone conversation, Obama informed Dolan that no substantial concession had been made. How can Dolan make the argument for engagement now?
The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.
Obama’s decision also reflects a certain view of liberalism. Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti- clericalism.
The administration’s ultimate motivation is uncertain. Has it adopted a radical secularism out of conviction, or is it cynically appealing to radical secularists? In either case, the war on religion is now formally declared.
michaelgerson@washpost.com
Every Obama voter deserves to be eaten by wild hogs.
-
The Obama administration's war on Christiansby
Newt Gingrich
02/01/201224
Last week, the Obama administration finalized a radical new rule that uses the health care law to require all health insurance providers to cover abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization as well as contraception, all free of charge. The administration based the rule’s “religious exemption” on a provision drafted by the ACLU, applying the rule even to religious organizations such as Catholic schools, hospitals, universities, and charities that oppose such things as a matter of religious belief.
The weak exemption the administration allowed applies only to religious organizations serving primarily people of the same religion. It is so narrow that Timothy Dolan, the Catholic Archbishop of New York City and current head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.”
Because Catholic institutions serve people of all faiths, the adoption by the Obama administration of the ACLU exemption language is an explicit and intentional assault on the Catholic Church in the United States. President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius know full well that they are ordering Catholic institutions to violate their church’s teachings if they want to stay in business. They also know full well that they are explicitly running over the First Amendment protection of religious freedom that every American is supposed to enjoy as a birthright.
President Obama’s message to Catholics is clear: Catholics will not be able to build organizations according to their faith and the teachings of their church as long as they refuse to accept President Obama’s radicalism. President Obama’s order is a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of conscience and an unprecedented assault on Christianity.
Catholics are uniformly opposed to the rule. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association—an ObamaCare supporter—expressed disappointment “that the definition of a religious employer was not broadened.” Even liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne blasted the rule, arguing that “the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings.”
The administration’s small concession—that it would allow organizations with religious objections an extra year to comply—does nothing to acknowledge their concerns. As Archbishop Dolan responded, “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”
This past Sunday, Catholics in churches across the country were read a letter from the Bishop of Marquette Alexander Sample drawing their attention to this unprecedented action by President Obama, describing the administration as having “cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.”
“Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights,” the letter said.
Bishop Sample is right. In choosing the radical agendas of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU over the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty; in dramatically undermining the numerous Catholic educational, health, and charitable institutions that provide so much good to so many Americans; and in implementing a rule no elected official has ever voted on, President Obama has chosen Saul Alinksy radicalism over the Constitution. It’s hard to see how many people of faith will long remain in a political party so hostile to their beliefs and their rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works and Winning the Future (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you demonic possessed leftists see obama go down in flames - this will be but one more reason why.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
How Obama Repaid Notre Dame
Facebook ^ | 1/31/12 | Sarah Palin
Posted on January 31, 2012 4:58:40 PM EST by Nachum
Back in May 2009, during the controversy over Notre Dame’s decision to have President Obama as their commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient, I gave a short statement to the Boston Herald: “My favorite grandpa, Clem James Sheeran, was Catholic. Irish to the core, his favorite place (other than church) was Notre Dame. I can’t imagine what he would think as the university recognizes someone who contradicts the core values of the Catholic faith by promoting an anti-life agenda.”
In his latest Washington Post column, Michael Gerson writes about the Obama administration’s war on Catholic institutions with President Obama's decision to strip conscience protections from Catholic universities, hospitals and charities.
As Gershon points out, the timing of Obama's most recent slap won't go unnoticed by the faithful: "In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. Preparing for the march, Catholic students gathered for Mass at Verizon Center. The faithful held vigil at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Knights of Columbus and bishops arrived to trudge in the cold along the Mall. All came to Washington in time for their mocking.”
And in this we see how the faithful at Notre Dame got snookered and how Obama has shamefully repaid their faith in him:
Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer...
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
-
Inoculating Against Religious Freedom
By Steve Chapman
www.realclearpolitics.co m
A few weeks ago, Rick Santorum got some criticism for saying the Supreme Court erred in saying states may not outlaw contraception. The idea that Americans could legally be forbidden to buy condoms or birth control pills struck most people as a gross violation of personal liberty.
They are right, of course. But many of those who think it's wrong to forbid Americans to buy contraceptives think it's just fine to require them to buy contraceptives. In this group, unfortunately, are President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who are hell-bent on enforcing that mandate on nearly everyone.
Under the Obama health care plan, employers that provide health insurance to employees must purchase coverage for contraceptives and sterilization. Individuals who buy their own policies have to get the coverage even if they've taken a vow of celibacy.
For Catholic institutions, this is not trivial. The church regards artificial contraception as a violation of the natural order, insisting that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."
The administration makes only miserly room for such views. Churches are effectively excused from the mandate, but other religious institutions -- such as hospitals, universities and charitable organizations -- are not.
A hospital may be named after a saint, founded by an order of nuns, replete with crucifixes and motivated by the teachings of Jesus, but too bad: It will be treated as the moral equivalent of Harrah's casinos or Bain Capital. Those in charge may regard birth control as inherently evil, but they will have to pay for it anyway.
This is particularly ungenerous considering that the administration has provided an exemption for another group. The Amish are excused from the individual mandate to get coverage because they have religious objections to insurance of any kind.
The administration wants to make sure that all women have access to contraception at no cost. But some will find it has the opposite effect.
Employers that furnish health insurance have to cover it. But employers don't have to furnish health insurance -- and some of those with a religious mission may decide not to. When the District of Columbia passed a law that forced Catholic Charities to provide medical insurance to the same-sex partners of its employees, the agency elected to simply drop coverage for spouses.
Anyone left without health insurance under the administration's rule can go to new state-run health insurance exchanges to buy individual policies. But here again, the administration rejects freedom of conscience. The only policies available will include coverage for contraceptives -- including those the church regards as "abortion drugs" -- and sterilization.
This overbearing approach is not essential to health care reform. Experience indicates that freedom can coexist with general access to contraception.
In the past, employers have generally been able to make their own decisions, and most cover it. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nine out of 10 company policies pay for prescription birth control. The federal employee plan allows insurers with religious scruples to sell policies that don't include such coverage -- which doesn't prevent anyone from getting policies that do.
This is an issue on which the Catholic Church is drastically at odds with prevailing opinion and practice. Its position has a way of bringing out latent anti-Catholic sentiment. Writing in The Huffington Post, June Carbone and Naomi Cahn sneer at "the male hierarchy's opposition to birth control." The issue, they insist, "is too important to be left in the hands of a small number of men in robes."
But religious freedom is too important to be left in the hands of people who see it as an obstacle to be pushed aside whenever it's inconvenient. Anytime it is feasible to let organizations and individuals follow the dictates of faith, it's essential that they be permitted to do so.
That's established policy in many areas. When the military relied on the draft, Quakers were allowed to opt out because of their pacifism. When a Seventh-Day Adventist was fired for refusing to work on her Sabbath, the Supreme Court said she was eligible for unemployment benefits. Prison officials have to accommodate the religious practices of inmates.
Why? Out of respect for religious freedom and diversity. Most Americans regard that tradition as a mark of civic health. In this case, the administration treats it as an illness to be cured.
schapman@tribune.com
Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.
-
what amazes me is you only have 78,000 posts.. I really thought it would be much higher ::)
-
what amazes me is you only have 78,000 posts.. I really thought it would be much higher ::)
Fuck off. Again - Obama lied his ass off about this.
-
Fuck off. Again - Obama lied his ass off about this.
by your count, Obama has lied approx 4, 654, 947 times. Why does each new "lie" require a new thread? He's a liar... there.. it's done.. let it go.
-
by your count, Obama has lied approx 4, 654, 947 times. Why does each new "lie" require a new thread? He's a liar... there.. it's done.. let it go.
no, it does not work that way when the POTUS - YOU VOTED FOR - assaults the constitution daily like this.
-
no, it does not work that way when the POTUS - YOU VOTED FOR - assaults the constitution daily like this.
Obviously not a lawyer, you don't spend enough time dealing with facts. I didn't vote Obama. Oh, btw, the sun came up this morning.. oughta post that on another thread.. its about as newsworthy as your other trillion threads
-
Obviously not a lawyer, you don't spend enough time dealing with facts. I didn't vote Obama. Oh, btw, the sun came up this morning.. oughta post that on another thread.. its about as newsworthy as your other trillion threads
Cry me a river. This is a very large issue.
-
Obviously not a lawyer, you don't spend enough time dealing with facts. I didn't vote Obama. Oh, btw, the sun came up this morning.. oughta post that on another thread.. its about as newsworthy as your other trillion threads
LOL!!!
Notice that except for the sympathy post from Skip here the thread was nothing more than the crybaby talking to himself until you came along?
When you notice that happening, it's best to just leave him alone and let him and the voices in his head finish their conversation.
-
LOL!!!
Notice that except for the sympathy post from Skip here the thread was nothing more than the crybaby talking to himself until you came along?
When you notice that happening, it's best to just leave him alone and let him and the voices in his head finish their conversation.
Whatever - why do you even bother posting if you do nothing but stalk other posters?
-
Except for us and about 2 other posters you would be all alone here.. you should be happy to see us!
-
Obama takes heat from Catholic leaders
Comments By David Jackson, USA TODAY Updated 22h 7m ago
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/obama-takes-heat-from-catholic-leaders/1
By Haraz N. Ghanbari, AP
It sounds like President Obama may have some work to do with Catholic voters.
Catholic leaders have been criticizing the White House ever since the Department of Health and Human Services proposed new regulations Jan. 20 on insurance coverage for women's contraceptive services.
An exemption covers only "religious employers" that hire mostly members of the same faith -- but not Catholic colleges, hospitals, or social service agencies, despite the church's objections to birth control.
As National Journal notes: "The explosion of anger from American church leaders was immediate. On Sunday, bishops in at least 125 of the 195 dioceses in the country had letters of protest read from the pulpit at all Masses. Four bishops -- in Phoenix; Cincinnati; Green Bay, Wis.; and Lubbock, Texas -- warned of civil disobedience.
"'We cannot -- we will not comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens,' said the letter from Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix," reported the Journal.
Mitt Romney picked up the theme after winning the Florida Republican primary, saying that "President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience. I will defend religious liberty and overturn regulations that trample on our first freedom."
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration believes its proposal "strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns."
Carney also cited "robust partnerships" with the Catholic Church and other communities of faith.
"The administration has provided over $2 billion to Catholic organizations over the past three years in addition to numerous non-financial partnerships that promote healthy communities and serve the common good," Carney said.
If the dispute becomes an issue in this year's election, the Catholic vote is not insignificant.
As George Condon reports in National Journal:
The numbers contain the political warnings. Fifty-five of the bishops represent dioceses in what will be battleground states in the election -- seven from Michigan; six each from Florida and Pennsylvania; five each from Ohio and Wisconsin; three from Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, Arizona, and Colorado.
Additionally, the clout of the Catholic vote is unquestioned. Since 1972, only once has a candidate won the presidency despite losing the Catholic vote, according to network exit polls. That lone exception was 2000 when Democrat Al Gore won 50 percent of Catholics but lost in the Electoral College to Republican George W. Bush, who got 47 percent of Catholics. If Hispanic Catholics are excluded and only white Catholics counted, the winning streak is unbroken: From 1972 to 2008, the candidate who got the most votes from white Catholics won the election.
In 2008, Obama trailed Republican John McCain among all Catholics for most of the campaign, but made a late surge to overtake him. Gallup showed him winning Catholics 53 to 47 percent. The media exit polls had him winning 54 to 45 percent.
The political clout is enhanced by the reality that the battleground states often have the highest concentrations of Catholics. In 2010, there were 77.7 million American Catholics, 25 percent of the population. And Catholics are the big swing vote in the key political states. In 2008 numbers compiled by the Official Catholic Directory, Catholics made up 41 percent in New Jersey, 32 percent in Nevada, 30 percent in Illinois and Wisconsin, 28 percent in Pennsylvania, 25 percent in New Mexico, 24 percent in New Hampshire, 22 percent in Michigan, 21 percent in Minnesota, 18 percent in Ohio, 17 percent in Iowa, and 13 percent in Missouri and Florida.
See photos of: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney
-
???
-
Except for us and about 2 other posters you would be all alone here.. you should be happy to see us!
Probably not. Then he could spew his deranged bullshit all day long and never get called on it.
-
Probably not. Then he could spew his deranged bullshit all day long and never get called on it.
So you agree with your messiah obama ordering religions to do things that go against their core beliefs?
-
My "messiah"?
Perfect example of the deranged thinking I noted above.
-
Obama's birth-control gamble
By: Glenn Thrush
February 2, 2012 04:38 AM EST
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=31782273-29C6-4152-AB78-5A7BDD2A28AF
President Barack Obama and his senior aides were more than a little concerned before he announced his controversial decision requiring Catholic hospitals and universities to provide contraception in employee health plans.
Obama — in recognition of the issue’s sensitivity to the church — picked up the phone to personally break the news to two influential Catholic leaders: New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Sister Carol Keehan, head of the largest Catholic health association in the country and a pivotal supporter of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
The president’s tone was polite but not contrite, a person briefed on the calls told POLITICO: He explained that while his health care law exempted Catholic churches from the requirement, he wouldn’t carve out other Catholic institutions even though the Vatican views artificial birth control as contrary to the will of God.
Aides say Obama’s move, which has sparked thunderous denunciations as he prepares to address the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday, was motivated by personal conviction and his long-held belief that all health plans need to provide birth control to women.
But the January decision was also a hard-headed election-year calculation with acute political risks — a bow to the concerns of womens’ rights groups that could alienate white Catholics, many of them critical independent voters in battleground states.
The handling of the issue offers a hint of Obama’s approach to governing and campaigning in 2012: When confronted with a position close to his heart — and dear to the base — Obama is increasingly inclined to side with people who will vote for him even if it means enraging those who might, but probably won’t, vote for him.
“Who are we going to really lose over this? Ron Paul voters?” asked a senior aide to a Senate Democrat, who thinks the administration should have handled the situation more quietly by punting a decision until after Election Day. “Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered. … Catholics who don’t believe in condoms aren’t going to vote for Barack Obama anyway. Let’s get real.”
Added Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), an abortion-rights advocate who supports the provision: “I don’t think people’s minds will be changed by this debate. As for the president, leadership can’t take the election year off.”
The vast majority of Americans back the use of contraception, and about three-quarters of Catholic women in recent polls part with the Church on its prohibition of condoms and the pill. But the political danger isn’t about pills or piety, it’s that the decision — made by the president himself after months of internal discussion — will be interpreted as a dangerous nanny-state intrusion into the religious freedom of Catholics.
“This is going to hurt him not only among Catholics or religious voters … because it reflects a pattern of overreach,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) who has introduced legislation that would exempt Catholic institutions from the policy.
“I hate to question people’s motives … but I think this is certainly indicative of an ideology that the policy goals of an administration trump religious freedom,” added Rubio, a devout Catholic at the top of the GOP vice presidential shortlist. “Is this really necessary? This is not a key provision of the health care bill. … Why is this a fight they would pick?”
Rubio, who opposes abortion rights, told POLITICO that he and his wife personally adhere to the church’s dictates on contraception. (“I can tell you that none of my children were planned,” he said with a chuckle.)
He said he would never impose his beliefs on the general population but believes that Catholic institutions, as extensions of the church, have the First Amendment right to not offer birth control to workers.
If a non-Catholic employee asks for birth control, that worker could “always … pay for it yourself” or “work in other places,” he said.
Rubio’s hardly alone in his view: Newt Gingrich decried the administration’s “war against religion,” and Mitt Romney also denounced the decision.
“Governor Romney is committed to repealing Obamacare and repealing the Obama administration’s rule requiring that religious employers furnish birth control, even when doing so would violate their beliefs,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email. “This is a direct attack on religious liberty and will not stand in a Romney presidency.”
While the eyes of political Washington were on the Florida GOP primary last week, the lenses at Fox were focusing on a powerful Catholic backlash against the Obama administration.
An outraged Dolan called the president’s decision “an unprecedented line in the sand” and penned a homily accusing HHS of promoting “sterilization and contraception.” Dolan added: “Never before in our U.S. history has the federal government forced citizens to directly purchase what violates our beliefs.”
On Sunday, Atlanta’s archbishop angrily denounced what he called a “direct attack on our religious freedom and our First Amendment rights,” and four clerics vowed unspecified nonviolent resistance.
Yet most damaging to Obama was a scathing Washington Post column on Monday by liberal Catholic E.J. Dionne, typically an ally, who accused the president of throwing “his progressive Catholic allies under the bus” while empowering “those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.”
Dionne’s under-the-bus remark was a reference to the conflicts within the church over the federal health law, which sometimes boiled down to a battle between nuns who supported the reforms, including Keehan, and the more conservative priests and prelates, men who dominate the church hierarchy.
Most Catholics don’t support every teaching of their church, but they have been souring on Obama, largely over economic issues. Romney holds a commanding 53-to-40 percent lead over Obama among white Catholics, according to a Pew poll taken early last month. Obama still holds a narrow lead among all Catholic voters, including Hispanics, but his support among white churchgoers has declined steadily since last fall, the poll showed.
Obama beat John McCain by 9 points among Catholics in 2008 after trailing him throughout the year, in part on his strength with Latino voters. That isn’t likely to happen this year, which could be a major factor in western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and New Hampshire, all states with substantial populations of older, white Catholics, already skeptical of Obama’s leadership.
“The Catholic vote is in jeopardy here if the president forces Catholic institutions to pay for contraception,” Kristen Day , executive director of Democrats for Life of America, told POLITICO Pro late last year.
The battle over contraceptive coverage began heating up in August, when HHS outlined the birth control mandate, which was based on the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives should be covered by insurance with no out-of-pocket costs to patients.
HHS exempted a narrow set of religious employers, such as churches. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pushed hard to exempt hospitals and universities, but Obama, who was deeply involved in the decision, was noncommittal during a meeting with bishops last November.
At the same time, he was coming under increasing pressure from women’s groups to back the birth-control policy, especially after the administration’s decision in early December to maintain restrictions on Plan B, the so-called “morning after” pill.
Planned Parenthood wrote that the question is whether to permit “an organization to refuse to allow its employees to choose which health care services are right for them,” and the National Women’s Law Center argued that the administration didn’t have authorization from Congress to exempt any employers from the coverage requirement.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) confronted Obama during a trip to the Granite State before the GOP primary, urging him to provide contraceptive coverage. Obama told her that he was sympathetic but had made no final decision.
It wasn’t until Jan. 20 that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the administration’s decision, sparking the firestorm from the bishops and the GOP presidential field.
“It’s very disturbing to me that his decision has been distorted and misinterpreted,” Shaheen told POLITICO. “It’s an issue of women’s health. Birth control is nearly universal in the country. I don’t understand why this is such a big issue.”
Despite the furor, some observers noted a lack of real popular fire over the issue.
Scott Alessi, writing on the American Catholic’s website last week, reported that one Wisconsin bishop got a standing ovation for his opposition — but claims that overall reaction generally seemed muted.
Alessi said a request for comment on his Facebook page met with a “tepid response,” including one Catholic who saw the proliferation of small families as proof that most of the bishops aren’t reflecting the real-world behavior of their flocks.
“I wonder how many other Catholics had that reaction, and simply shrugged rather than display the outrage at the Obama administration’s actions that the bishops are counting on,” he wrote.
And one GOP campaign aide said that the issue of contraception — while potentially making the case for Obama overreach — mostly would energize voters already committed to defeating Obama.
“This is about our base, not about independents,” the aide said.
© 2012 POLITICO LLC
-
Aides say Obama’s move, which has sparked thunderous denunciations as he prepares to address the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday, was motivated by personal conviction and his long-held belief that all health plans need to provide birth control to women.
________________________ ______
Speechless at the arrogance of this monster.
-
Pelosi Vows to Stand With Obama Against Catholic Church; Says Decision Forcing Catholics to Act Against Faith Was ‘Very Courageous’
By Thomas Cloud
February 2, 2012
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-vows-stand-obama-against-catholic-church-says-decision-forcing-catholics-act
(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) vowed today that she will join with the Obama administration in standing up against the Catholic Church in defending a new regulation that will require Catholic individuals to buy, and Catholic institutions to provide, health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and artificial contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.
The Catholic church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong and the Catholic bishops of the United States have argued that forcing a Catholic individual to purchase a health insurance plan that covers these things--or forcing a Catholic institution to provide such a plan--forces Catholics to act against their consciences and is a violation of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
In letters being read from the pulpit in Catholic parishes across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
At her Wednesday press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Pelosi: “The administration has issued a regulation that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilization and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions. This would force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation, Catholic bishops are saying:--
Pelosi responded: "Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?"
CNSNews.com continued: “‘We cannot--we will not—comply with this law.’ Catholic bishops are saying they will not comply with this law. Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the administration?”
Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius first announced the proposed regulation in August as part of the initial implementation of Obamacare. The regulation, as proposed, was set to take effect on Aug. 1 of this year. In September, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent public comments on the regulation to HHS. In these comments, the bishops called the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious freedom” and urged that it be rescinded.
In November, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, met with President Obama and personally explained to him the Catholic Church’s objections to the regulation.
On Jan. 20, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the regulations would go forward and will take effect for most health care plans as of Aug. 1. However, Sebelius gave religiously affiliated non-profit organizations---such as Catholic hospitals, universities, and charitable organizations---an additional year to “adapt” to the mandate. For them, it now set to take effect on Aug. 1, 2013.
Following Sebelius announcement, the Catholic bishops put out a statement calling the regulation “literally unconscionable.” Meanwhile, Catholic bishops around the country have been calling on Catholics to oppose the regulation.
Many of the bishops have published letters that priests are reading to their congregations. The letters explain the Catholic objections to the regulation and call for Catholics to resist it. Many of these letter include the following passage from the letter Bishop Paul Loverde of Arlington, Va., and Bishop Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond, Va., have asked their priests to read at Mass this coming Sunday:
“In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing do). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.
“We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
-
If you are in the health business you will do these things. It has nothing to do wth your religion. If you don't like it get the fuck out of the health business.
PS. Noting of the sort mentioned ever in a church in VA, WI, CA, and OH. So the lead article was complete tool laced bull shit. And I gotta believe you'd have completely different attitude if it was an issue with Muslims.
-
If you are in the health business you will do these things. It has nothing to do wth your religion. If you don't like it get the fuck out of the health business.
PS. Noting of the sort mentioned ever in a church in VA, WI, CA, and OH. So the lead article was complete tool laced bull shit. And I gotta believe you'd have completely different attitude if it was an issue with Muslims.
HOW ABOUT IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU PAY FOR IT YOUR FUCKING SELF OR FIND A NEW EMPLOYER! ! ! !
By the way - would you be ok with the Govt forcing a Jewish Deli or a muslim owned resturant to serve pork undert the idea that a resturant is a public accomodation?
-
If you are in the health business you will do these things. It has nothing to do wth your religion. If you don't like it get the fuck out of the health business.
PS. Noting of the sort mentioned ever in a church in VA, WI, CA, and OH. So the lead article was complete tool laced bull shit. And I gotta believe you'd have completely different attitude if it was an issue with Muslims.
My buddy lives in Columbus OH and he heard it.
Again - why shouldnt the employer get to chose what it will cover?
-
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=599733&p=1&ibdbot=1
Screw Obama. Fuck you disgusting Obama voters.
-
Protestants and Jews declare to White House: We stand with Catholics
The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty ^ | 12-22-11 | Emily Hardman
Posted on February 3, 2012 1:00:56 AM EST by dangus
Protestant and orthodox Jewish leaders join in opposition to HHS contraceptive mandate.
Today, more than 40 non-Catholic religious organizations including Protestant-affiliated colleges, National Association of Evangelicals, Focus on the Family, Assemblies of God, Northwest Nazarene University, and Eastern Mennonite University, sent a letter to the White House demanding religious protection against the newly issued HHS contraceptive mandate.
“We write not in opposition to Catholic leaders and organizations. We write in solidarity.” Says the coalition letter. “Leaders of other faiths are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the mandate and the narrow exemption.”
In a letter sent December 21, 2011, the group expressed deep concern about the contraceptive provision in the Health and Human Services mandates, which includes the most narrow “religious employer” qualifications excluding protection of most-faith based organizations.
“We are all deeply concerned about the narrow exemption, including proposals made to expand it while still leaving unprotected many faith-based organizations.” The letter continues, “We believe that the Federal government is obligated by the First Amendment to accommodate the religious convictions of faith-based organizations of all kinds, Catholic and non-Catholic.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty currently represents Belmont Abbey College, a private Catholic College, and Colorado Christian University, a non-denominational Christian University, in the first lawsuits against this unprecedented mandate.
-
Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Feb 3, 7:13 AM (ET)
By RACHEL ZOLL
(AP) In this Oct. 31, 2011 file photo, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is...
Full Image
The Obama administration's decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their beliefs on contraception.
The regulation, finalized a week ago, raises a complex and sensitive legal question: Which institutions qualify as religious and can be exempt from the mandate?
For a church, mosque or synagogue, the answer is mostly straightforward. But for the massive network of religious-run social service agencies there is no simple solution. Federal law lays out several criteria for the government to determine which are religious. But in the case of the contraception mandate, critics say Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius chose the narrowest ones. Religious groups that oppose the regulation say it forces people of faith to choose between upholding church doctrine and serving the broader society.
"It's not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further," said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, representing some 600 hospitals.
Keehan's support for the passage of the Obama health care overhaul was critical in the face of intense opposition by the U.S. bishops. She now says the narrowness of the religious exemption in the birth control mandate "has jolted us." She pledged to use a one-year grace period the administration has provided to "pursue a correction."
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. Last year, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies. The regulation includes a religious exemption if an organization qualifies. Under that provision, an employer generally will be considered religious if its main purpose is spreading religious beliefs, and if it largely employs and serves people of the same faith. That means a Catholic parish likely would qualify for a religious exemption; a large church-run soup kitchen probably would not.
Employers that fail to provide health insurance coverage under the federal law could be fined $2,000 per employee per year. The bishops' domestic anti-poverty agency, Catholic Charities, says it employs 70,000 people nationwide. The fine for the University of Notre Dame, the most prominent Catholic school in the country, could be in the millions of dollars.
HHS says employers can appeal a decision on whether they qualify for an exemption. But Hannah Smith, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, "The mandate vests too much unbridled discretion in the hands of government bureaucrats."
Mandates for birth-control coverage are not entirely new for religious groups. Twenty-eight states already require contraceptive coverage in prescription drug plans. Of those states, 17 offer a range of religious exemptions, while two others provide opt-outs of other kinds. However, opponents of the HHS regulation say there is no state mandate as broad as the new federal rule combined with a religious exemption that is so narrow.
Even in states where the requirement already exists, the issue is far from settled.
Wisconsin's 2009 contraception mandate did not include a religious exemption, but allowed an exception for employers who self-insure. While some dioceses in the state were able to self-insure, others couldn't afford to do so. The Diocese of Madison, Wis., ended up offering a policy with birth-control coverage, but asked employees to follow church teaching and not use the benefit. Local bishops continued to lobby state lawmakers for an exemption. But leaders knew a national health care overhaul was in development and hoped the federal law would be an improvement, said John Huebscher, executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state's bishops.
In California, whose religious exemption served as the model for the Obama administration, dioceses and some church-run agencies were able to self-insure, said Carol Hogan of the California Catholic Conference, but that option is for the most part unavailable under the federal health care law. Church-run groups could have stopped offering insurance to their employees, but considered that option unfair to workers.
The bishops have responded sharply to the regulation, launching a nationwide campaign against the mandate.
Bishops in more than 140 dioceses issued statements that were read at Mass last weekend. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the requirement "a radical incursion on the part of our government into freedom of conscience." Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote that "the Obama administration was essentially saying 'to hell with you,' particularly to the Catholic community by dismissing our beliefs, our religious freedom and our freedom of conscience."
The Becket Fund had previously filed two federal lawsuits over the regulations on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic liberal arts school near Charlotte, N.C., and Colorado Christian University, an evangelical school near Denver. Both challenge the mandate as a violation of several freedoms, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government cannot impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The fine for Belmont Abbey would be more than $300,000 for the first year, and more than $500,000 for Colorado Christian, Smith, the Becket Fund counsel, said.
Many conservatives are also supporting legislation by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., that would codify a series of exceptions to the new health care law on religious and conscience grounds
For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect Aug. 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. Women working for secular enterprises, from profit-making companies to government, will have access to the new coverage starting Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases.
Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.
There is no mandate to cover abortions. But that is little comfort to Catholic leaders, since the regulation violates other church teachings.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the administration will not reconsider the decision.
---
Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington contributed to this report.
-
His Abominations Accelerate
By Quin Hillyer on 2.3.12 @ 6:08AM
Obama's the man leading the Occupy the Oval Office movement.
The Republican presidential campaign thus far has been so bizarre and, frankly, depressing, that some of us have failed to adequately cover worrisome developments on a number of other important fronts. By ineptness and, worse, by deliberate design, Barack Obama daily makes this nation weaker abroad, less free (and more authoritarian) at home, economically more feeble, and in the civic realm more bitterly divided than ever. Meanwhile, ominous developments crowd the world stage. In short, we're in a big heap of trouble.
The recent litany of Obama's odiousness begins with his growing, unambiguous war against traditional Christianity. He has now left no room for any pretense otherwise to be believed. Right on the heels of a unanimous Supreme Court, including his own two appointees, smacking down his administration's attempt to kill the "ministerial exemption" for employment practices of faith-based institutions, an unchastened Obama has decided that even faith-based organizations must provide insurance that covers contraception -- even including abortifacients.
This is not just a narrow policy disagreement; it is, as Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote, the president's way of saying "To Hell With You" to people of faith -- "To hell with your religious beliefs. To hell with your religious liberty. To hell with your freedom of conscience." Zubik continued: "This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone -- not only Catholics; not only people of all religion. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens."
Obama's broadsides, plural, against religious liberty are only a part of his radical transgressions against the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives are rightly up in arms about Obama's illegal recess appointments. Obamacare, of course, contains several anti-Constitutional abominations, including the "individual mandate" and the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Meanwhile, his administration is flagrantly violating precedent by trying to force explicit hiring quotas on the Fire Department of New York, in a case in which a key amicus brief was filed on January 24 at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
And so on.
Abroad, this man leading the Occupy the Oval Office movement is even worse. He threw away a clear victory in Iraq and may be doing the same in Afghanistan. His fecklessness regarding Iran, perfectly in line with his long record of favoring Shia interests, is now leading to a crisis of the first order. His strange mishandling of the Egyptian revolution has left the United States with very little leverage in a country that for more than three decades was a major American ally, and has left Coptic Christians scared to death. He long ago insulted allies such as Israel and Great Britain, repeatedly and with malice aforethought. He seems to have no real relationship of any positive nature with any allied foreign leader, perhaps with the exception of those in Brazil, whose oil exploration he subsidizes while blocking tens of thousands of jobs that would come from domestic energy production he has snuffed out. And he seems hell-bent on a mission to starve the American armed forces to dangerous thinness.
Killing the private college-loan industry. Hobbling private for-profit colleges. Illegally seizing auto companies. Whoring for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Turning public policy over to thuggish union bosses and destroying jobs in South Carolina to do so. Turning the Justice Department into a thoroughly corrupt, lawless, racialist, hyper-politicized, gun-running, vote-fraud-enabling, bullying arm of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Regulating the life out of almost every aspect of the economy. Buying political support by funneling taxpayer money to failing private alternative-energy companies. Lying with the Supreme Court sitting in front of him about what they decided in the Citizens United case. Lying about so many things that one loses count. Roiling racial tensions every chance he gets.
This is a man who has no interest in serving the United States that most of us know and love. Instead, he's a man who, by hook and definitely by crook, serves the despicable vision of the utterly foreign America he wants to impose on us.
Four more years of this guy in power, and we are doomed. He is a menace, and, by every legal means possible, he must be stopped -- and his maladministration reversed and thoroughly buried.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom.
StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Facebook| Twitter
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/03/his-abominations-accelerate
Follow us: ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe Current Issue Who's Really Conservative? by Alfred S. Regnery The Pearls of Pauline by Gerald Nachman Progressive Derangements by James Bowman Click for more »» Digital Subscription (Save 78%)Buy a single issue (Save 50%)Send Spectator as a giftClip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Facebook Recommends
-
The Military Is Now Telling Catholic Chaplains What They Can And Can't Say About The Obama Administration
Michael Brendan Dougherty | 18 minutes ago | 245 | 8
Jon Terbush / Business Insider
The emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration may have a new front: in the U.S. military itself.
The Catholic Church is fighting mad about an HHS ruling that would have them buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion.
All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church "cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law."
Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.
But after he did the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.
More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway. Others sought further instructions from their Archbishop.
Now after much behind-the-scenes bureaucratic wrangling, a new version of the letter will be read, one that was edited of the language about "unjust laws."
A new statement issued this afternoon from Archbishop Broglio's office acknowledged the interference this way:
Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.
Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop's letter. Additionally, the line: "We cannot-we will not-comply with this unjust law" was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.
It's an issue that Catholic chaplains are taking very seriously privately. We obtained a confidential letter sent to the chaplains that prepares priests to contact the Military Archdiocesan lawyer in case of more interference or any punishment.
The Archdiocese believes that any attempt to keep a chaplain from freely teaching and preaching the Catholic faith, for which you were endorsed, is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. If any of you are in any way punished or slated for punitive action, I ask that you kindly call our Archdiocesan Attorney, John L. Schlageter, Esq. at 202-719-3635 and he will immediately place you into contact with a Religious Freedom Law Firm that will be most willing to take your case free of charge.
The letter also tries to clarify to priests that, the Archbishop's letter "concerns a moral, not a political issue."
While it is true that soldiers do not have an unlimited right to free speech or political action, the military does not want to strain relations with the Catholic Church and its chaplains who provide services to many service-members of all faiths.
DEVELOPING
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-military-is-now-telling-catholic-chaplains-can-and-cant-say-about-obama-administration-2012-2#ixzz1lMUVUK22
-
Obama ruling requires Catholic institutions to violate church teaching
By Melinda Henneberger
President Obama quoted C.S. Lewis on Thursday morning, and normally that would have made my day. The president is good at talking about his Christian faith, as he did at a National Prayer Breakfast, and ought to do more of it if he wants to relieve Americans of some of their most basic misconceptions about him.
But more than I want to hear him tell how the Rev. T.D. Jakes drops by the Oval now and again, I want to know why he repaid Sister Carol Keehan, who carried health-care reform around on her back for him, with a betrayal that could lose him the Catholic vote and his reelection bid.
If that’s what happens, he’ll have no one to blame but himself, after a recent edict by his Health and Human Service Department effectively denied conscience protections to church-run schools, hospitals and social service agencies, which under his Affordable Care Act must provide free contraception to employees, in violation of church teaching.
To review, there would be no Affordable Care Act without Keehan, the president of the Catholic Health Association, who incurred the wrath of the bishops for standing up for the legislation, and for the truth that there isn’t any abortion funding in it.
There would be no Affordable Care Act if not for Democratic abortion foes in the House, notably Bart Stupak (Mich.), who for his trouble was reviled by his fellow party members, accosted by critics in airports and sent at least one death threat. He also lost his job over it, deciding to retire after the fight, at the end of his term.
So, too, will there be no Affordable Care Act if Catholics swing the other way in the fall.
President Romney won’t be forcing nuns to dole out free diaphragms in violation of their religious freedom and the Constitution that guarantees it.
In fact, under him there won’t be any health-care reform at all. (Yes, I refuse to call that reform the O-word, although I might change my mind if the president doesn’t make it up to Sister Carol).
Newt Gingrich often says that Obama has “declared war on the Catholic Church.” Mitt Romney, too, talks about the president’s “assault on religion.’’ But the worst part is that they aren’t making this up.
Before Jan. 20, that sort of talk struck me as a close cousin of the imagined “war on Christmas,” a holiday that, last I checked, we celebrate from Halloween through the Epiphany.
But now the Obama administration has handed his critics an example of an action that fits nicely with the narrative that he’s a secularist who looks down on believers.
I wasn’t going to write about this, because E.J. Dionne and Michael Gerson have laid out many of the problems already — and when those two gentlemen agree, doesn’t that give the White House just a little pause?
Yet here we are, two weeks after the ruling, and I see no dawning appreciation that it’s time to respond any more meaningfully than this:
The White House posted a blog item on its Web site that answers the criticism by pointing out that “churches are exempt.” Yes, but church-run schools, hospitals and social service agencies are not. And that’s where the feed-the-hungry work goes on. As Obama so aptly noted at the prayer breakfast, that work is precisely what Jesus called us to do, time after time, in the Gospels.
(The coup de grace, though, is that only outfits that serve their own kind are exempt from the requirement. As retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington has asked, are workers in soup kitchens supposed to start asking not “Are you hungry?” but “Are you Catholic?”)
The White House Web site also notes that “no one will be forced to buy or use birth control.” No, just to give it away, as part of employee health packages.
It notes, too, that “contraception is used by most women,” Catholics included. Again, true but not remotely the issue, which is the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Catholic swing voters turned out for Obama in 2008, favoring him 54 percent to 45 percent over Republican John McCain. But they may not do that again in November after last Sunday, when New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan — who met with Obama in November and was assured that the president appreciated the importance of conscience protections — joined archbishops all over the land in having letters denouncing the Obama administration decision read at Sunday Mass.
I do not agree with my colleague Michael Gerson that the decision is a “transparently anti-Catholic maneuver” or a radical power-grab, “delivered with a sneer.” But Sister Carol deserves better. And if she doesn’t get it, those will have been some mighty high-priced condoms.
Melinda Henneberger is a Post political writer and anchors ‘She the People.’ Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC.
By Melinda Henneberger | 07:57 PM ET, 02/02/2012
you lay down w Satan, you wake up w demons.
-
My buddy lives in Columbus OH and he heard it.
Again - why shouldnt the employer get to chose what it will cover?
We are talking about a health care provider. Not employers, or food service. Try and keep up 3333.
-
We are talking about a health care provider. Not employers, or food service. Try and keep up 3333.
No, this applys to everyone. Obama lied to and betrayed the Catholics on this, no different than he does w everyone.
-
No, this applys to everyone. Obama lied to and betrayed the Catholics on this, no different than he does w everyone.
::)
-
I don't agree with this at all. The government should not be dictating what religious hospitals do, especially when it violates their faith.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1
even USA today agrees that Obama is violating the 1st amendment.
-
Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)
Obamacare vs. the Catholics
The administration’s breach of faith.
Jonathan V. Last
February 13, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 21
On the last weekend of January, priests in Catholic churches across America read extraordinary letters to their congregations. The missives informed the laity that President Obama and his administration had launched an assault on the church. In Virginia, Catholics heard from Bishop Paul Loverde, who wrote, “I am absolutely convinced that an unprecedented and very dangerous line has been crossed.” In Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted wrote, “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.” In Pittsburgh, Bishop David Zubik wrote that President Obama had told Catholics, “To Hell with your religious beliefs.” Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria asked his flock to join him in the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which concludes: By the Divine Power of God / cast into Hell, Satan and all the evil spirits / who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
It was a remarkable moment, in part because despite their stern reputation, most Catholic bishops are not terribly conservative. They tend to be politically liberal and socially cautious. If they were less holy men, stauncher conservatives would call them squishes. Real live conservative bishops are so few and far between that whenever one appears on the scene, such as Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput, he’s seen as a vaguely threatening curiosity. You can tell when a bishop is conservative because you will hear him referred to as “hardline” or “ultra-orthodox,” so as to mark him apart from the rest of the herd.
But what made the moment even more remarkable is that the bishops were not exaggerating. It is now a requirement of Obamacare that every Catholic institution larger than a single church—and even including some single churches—must pay for contraceptives, sterilization, and morning-after abortifacients for its employees. Each of these is directly contrary to the Catholic faith. But the Obama administration does not care. They have said, in effect, Do what we tell you—or else.
The beginnings of this confrontation lay in an obscure provision of Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which stated that all insurers will be required to provide “preventive health services.” When the law was passed, “preventive” was not defined but left to be determined at a later date.
This past August, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally got around to explaining the administration’s interpretation of the phrase. Based on a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine, the administration would define “preventive health services” to include contraceptives, morning-after pills, and female sterilization. And they would interpret the “all insurers” section to include religious organizations, whatever their beliefs.
Sebelius included one small conscience exemption: A religious employer who objects to medical treatment aimed at prevention of the disease commonly known as “pregnancy” may leave it out of their health insurance coverage provided the employer satisfies three criteria: (1) It has religious inculcation as its primary duty; (2) It primarily employs people of the same faith; and (3) It primarily serves people of the same faith. This fig leaf is enough to cover most small churches—so long as your parish employs only a couple of priests and a secretary, it would probably get a pass. Larger institutions would not.
In the Catholic world, for instance, a diocesan office often employs lots of people—lawyers, janitors, administrative staff—who are not necessarily Catholic. And the duties of such offices extend far beyond inculcation of the faith—to include charity, community service, and education. Or take Catholic universities. There are more than 200 of them, serving some 750,000 students. They clearly do not fit the exemption. Neither would any of the 6,980 Catholic elementary or secondary schools. Nor the country’s 600 Catholic hospitals; nor its 1,400 Catholic long-term care centers. Ditto the network of Catholic social services organizations that spend billions of dollars a year to serve the needy and disadvantaged.
As soon as Sebelius released this decision, the Catholic church panicked. The Conference of Catholic Bishops reached out to the administration to explain the position in which it had put them. But the tone of their concern was largely friendly: Most Catholic leaders were convinced that the entire thing was a misunderstanding and that the policy—which was labeled an “interim” measure—would eventually be amended.
The reason for this optimism was that more than a few important Catholics had previously climbed out on a high branch for Obama politically, and for his health care reform as a matter of policy. Despite what you may read in the New York Times, most lay Catholics are nominally at home in the Democratic party. (Remember that a majority of Catholics voted for Obama in 2008.) And what is true of the laity goes double for those in religious life. In 2009, Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins welcomed President Obama as the school’s commencement speaker in the face of a heated student protest. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops mostly kept its powder dry during the fight over Obamacare, and very few members of the church hierarchy actively, or even tacitly, opposed the bill. Others, such as Sister Carol Keehan, the president of the Catholic Health Association, actually lobbied in favor of it, early and often. So most Catholics took the president at his word when he met with Archbishop Timothy Dolan last fall and assured him that when the final version of the policy was eventually released, any fears would be allayed.
That was their mistake. Obama telephoned Dolan on the morning of January 20 to inform him that the only concession he intended to offer in the final policy was to extend the deadline for conformity to August 2013. Every other aspect of the policy enunciated by Sebelius would remain rigidly in place.
It’s unclear whether Obama anticipated the blowback which resulted from this announcement, or perhaps even welcomed the fight. The liberal Catholic establishment nearly exploded. Sister Keehan was so horrified she threw her lot in with the more conservative Dolan in full-throated opposition to Obama. Cardinal Roger Mahony, the spectacularly liberal archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, wrote, “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience. . . . This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic community can muster.” Michael Sean Winters, the National Catholic Reporter’s leftist lion, penned a 1,800-word cri de coeur titled “J’accuse!” in which he declared that, as God was his witness, he would never again vote for Obama. The editors of the Jesuit magazine America denounced a “wrong decision,” while the Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne called the policy “unconscionable.” When you’ve lost even E.J. and the Jesuits, you’ve lost the church.
The reason liberal Catholics were so wounded is twofold. First, this isn’t a religio-cultural fight over Latin in the Mass or Gregorian chant. The subjects of contraception, abortion, and sterilization are not ornamental aspects of the Catholic faith; they flow from the Church’s central teachings about the dignity of the human person. Second, Obama has left Catholic organizations a very narrow set of options. (1) They may truckle to the government’s mandate, in violation of their beliefs. (2) They may cease providing health insurance to their employees altogether, though this would incur significant financial penalties under Obamacare. (The church seems unlikely to obtain any of Nancy Pelosi’s golden waivers.) Or (3) they may simply shut down. There is precedent for this final option. In 2006, Boston’s Catholic Charities closed its adoption service—one of the most successful in the nation—after Massachusetts law required that the organization must place children in same-sex households.
Which means that what is actually on the block are precisely the kind of social-justice services—education, health care, and aid to the needy—that liberal Catholics believe to be the most vital works of the church. For conservative Catholics, Obama merely confirmed their darkest suspicions; for liberals, it was a betrayal in full.
As a matter of law, this decision by Obama’s health care bureaucrats seems unlikely to survive. Last month, the Supreme Court struck down another attempt by the administration to bully religious believers in the Hosanna-Tabor case. In that instance, Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that a religious organization does not have the right to control its hiring and firing according to its religious belief. The Court struck down this argument 9-0 in a rebuke so embarrassing that Justice Elena Kagan came close to openly mocking her successor as Obama’s solicitor general during oral arguments. It was the kind of sweeping decision that should have deterred the Obama administration from forcing Catholics into complying with the health insurance mandate, because it suggested that the Court will very likely side against the administration once this matter comes before it. Presidents typically dislike being overturned unanimously by the High Court.
The trick, of course, is that when Sebelius issued the final protocol, her lone concession was the one-year delay in implementation. Which, for Obama, has the happy side-effect of pushing the moment of enforcement to August 2013. Meaning that no legal challenge can come until after the 2012 election. Which suggests that the thinking behind the policy may be primarily political. The question, then, is whether Obama’s confrontation with Catholics makes electoral sense.
While Catholics were blindsided by the January decision, the left had been paying close attention to the subject for months. In November, several leftist and feminist blogs began beating the war drums, warning Obama not to “cave” (their word) to the bishops. They were joined by the Nation, Salon, the Huffington Post, and the usual suspects. (Sample headline: “The Men Behind the War on Women.”) At the same time, Planned Parenthood and NARAL launched grassroots lobbying efforts and delivered petitions with 100,000 and 135,000 signatures respectively to the White House urging Obama to uphold the policy and not compromise.
In that sense, Obama’s decision might be thought of as akin to his decision halting the Keystone oil pipeline: a conscious attempt to energize his base at the expense of swing voters, who he concluded were already lost.
The other possibility, of course, is that Obama sees the dismantling of Catholic institutions as part of a larger ideological mission, worth losing votes over. As Yuval Levin noted in National Review Online last week, institutions such as the Catholic church represent a mediating layer between the individual and the state. This layer, known as civil society, is one of the principal differences between Western liberal order and the socialist view.
Levin argues that the current fight is just one more example of President Obama’s attempt to bulldoze civil society. He wants to sweep away the middle layer so that individuals may have a more direct and personal encounter with the state. The attack on Catholics is, Levin concludes, “an attack on mediating institutions of all sorts, moved by the genuine belief that they are obstacles to a good society.”
Seen in this light, Obama’s confrontation with the Catholic church is of a piece with the administration’s pursuit of the rickety Hosanna-Tabor case and another incident from last October, when the Department of Health and Human Services defunded a grant to the Conference of Catholic Bishops. That program supported aid to victims of human trafficking. The Obama administration decided that they no longer wanted the Catholic church in the business of helping these poor souls. That, evidently, is the government’s job.
Of course, there is a third possibility in explaining the president’s motives. It could be that, in deciding to go to war with the Catholic church, President Obama has hit on one of those rare moments where his electoral interests—at least as he perceives them—and his ideological goals are blessedly aligned.
Jonathan V. Last is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!
Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.
Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.
Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obamacare-vs-catholics_620946.html
-
http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/obama-sandbags-the-archbishop.html
pat B spot on as always.
fuck Obama!
-
A prominent backer of Barack Obama’s 2008 run for the White House says he might not support the president’s reelection bid because of the administration’s controversial decision on contraception.
Douglas Kmiec, Obama’s former ambassador to Malta, is strongly opposed to Obama’s new mandate that Catholic hospitals and universities provide contraception in their employee health plans.
Kmiec, who served in the Reagan administration, noted that he urged Obama last year to grant an exemption, explaining that such a move “would be an opportunity to be more sensitive to religious freedom than the law requires.”
Asked whether he will back Obama in 2012, Kmiec replied in an email, "Until I have an opportunity to speak with the president, I am for now (unhappily) without a candidate."
Kmiec, now a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, said last year there was a "98 percent chance" he would support Obama's reelection bid.
He told The Hill that "there were several ways to reimburse employees of Catholic institutions for the expense which did not implicate any of the ethical concerns of the theologians. Why exactly did we not walk down a path that would have led to common ground — namely, coverage without ethical objection? That’s what I need answered before deciding on 2012. I find it most troubling to be tossed into this dilemma since as a Republican with independent, if not latent Democratic, tendencies, I am very proud of the president’s success on the healthcare initiative and his withdrawal of troops from Iraq..."
The administration has staunchly defended its decision, pointing out that churches are still exempt from the requirement, which won't take effect until 2013. Supporters of the new policy also note that many states already have similar policies.
Clergy officials have lambasted Obama's move, which was hailed by abortion-rights groups.
Political analysts say the tension between the Catholic Church and Obama could hamper the president's bid for a second term. Republicans running for the White House have repeatedly criticized Obama in recent days.
Kmiec, a Catholic who opposes abortion rights, was denied Communion in the wake of his endorsement of Obama, which caused a stir when he announced his decision. Kmiec had originally backed Romney before switching, and he earned a speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention.
In his convention speech, he made the case why voters, especially Catholics, should back Obama despite his support for abortion rights. Kmiec asserted that Obama's other policy positions were key to his backing.
"[Obama] understands the truth of a human person," Kmiec reportedly said at the time. He added that being pro-life "has to be a commitment to all life."
What a deranged person. Did he think Obama gave a damn in 2008?
-
Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments
CBS News ^ | February 6, 2012 11:00 PM
Posted on February 7, 2012 7:09:58 AM EST by 1010RD
Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.
As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.
Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.
“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.
Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it.
“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said.
But pro-choice groups said they will fight the church and fight for the right of employees of Catholic institutions to have birth control and other services paid for.
“The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,” National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newyork.cbslocal.com ...
-
Why Does President Obama Dislike Freedom Of Conscience?
Image via Wikipedia
Authoritarian liberalism has taken over Obama administration policy. People must be forced to accept anything and everything in the name of tolerance. The only valid belief is no belief. Acting on one’s faith must be punished.
Such is the impact of the new Department of Health and Human Services ruling on birth control (as well as abortifacients, or “morning after” pills, and sterilization procedures). Even religious organizations must provide policies offering full coverage with no shared payment. Never mind if the people involved believe that contraception is morally wrong.
ObamaCare, which vastly expands federal control over American health care, suffers manifold flaws. One of the most obvious is further taking insurance out of “health insurance.”
Insurance is supposed to counter the risk of unlikely but potentially catastrophic events, such as having an accident or contracting cancer. Using birth control, a voluntary, routine and inexpensive decision, obviously is not such an occurrence. “Insuring” against something over which one has full control makes no sense.
Mandating coverage of these and other voluntary choices—such as using Viagra, for instance—effectively turns “insurance” into prepayment of discretionary medical expenses, raising costs. Premiums must rise enough to cover the extra procedure, inflated by the increased demand due to the zero marginal price, as well as the administrative expense of reimbursing people for every birth control pill (or other procedure/product) purchased. Imagine if auto “insurance” covered routine maintenance and even gasoline fill-ups. Yet this perversion of “health insurance” already is far advanced, and has contributed to the dramatic rise in health care costs in recent years.
An insurance plan might decide that the cost of covering birth control (or sterilization or abortifacients) is balanced by lower expenses for unwanted pregnancies. That’s undoubtedly one reason an estimated nine of ten plans voluntarily cover contraception. But coverage should be an economic, not a political, decision left to insurers and insured.
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, termed the issue a matter of “women’s rights.” Planned Parenthood exulted that the rule would save women $15 to $50 a month. Nancy Keenan, president of the pro-abortion group NARAL, proclaimed that “All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they work.”
But what makes contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients more important than life-saving treatment for cancer and other deadly diseases, which receive less complete coverage? And contraception still will not be free, since women will be paying increased premiums—for something a number of them would not freely choose.
Most important, access is not the issue since birth control is legal everywhere. Instead, the administration diktat simply forces everyone who does not use birth control (or uses birth control less than average) to pay for everyone else. Advocates of the contraception/sterilization/abortifacient mandate just want to subsidize their favored “treatments.” To them it doesn’t matter if men or even women don’t want to pay or be paid for this “benefit.”
The requirement would be bad policy even if it was just another of the 2000 different mandates already imposed by the federal and state governments. But the rule violates the core religious beliefs of millions of Americans.
Those who get insurance on their own or through secular employers will be forced to pay for a product or procedure for themselves and others which they view as sinful. Religious organizations will be forced either to provide the same coverage or drop health insurance entirely, leaving their employees uncovered while paying a sizable penalty to the federal government. Indeed, numerous Catholic bishops have said that the Church will not comply with the rule. And Catholic Charities dropped spousal coverage when the District of Columbia mandated coverage for gay partners. People already sacrificing the most to help others will suffer as a result.
It doesn’t matter what others think of the religious teachings involved. Many Catholics and some fundamentalist Protestants believe birth control to be wrong, and to underwrite contraception for others would make them accomplices to sin. Even worse are abortifacients, viewed by many people as the equivalent of abortion, which is opposed by even more Christians (as well as members of other faiths) as immoral killing.
While the Obama administration did not attempt to force churches to cover birth control—believers should be grateful for small favors!—it refused to grant any exemption for other religious organizations, which employ between one and two million people. Thomas Messner of the Heritage Foundation pointed to “a wide range of objecting institutions, including religious charities, hospitals, colleges, nursing homes, and universities.”
Technically the rule only mandates coverage by organizations which serve people of other faiths, but what Catholic hospital, for instance, is going to refuse to treat Protestants, Jews, and Muslims? What Christian college will bar non-Christians? If believers band together to educate children, treat the sick, or aid the poor, the Obama administration insists that they must violate their other religious beliefs.
All the administration is willing to offer is a year delay, to August 2013. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius proclaimed that “This proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”
But the rule represents no balance at all. Religious believers must sacrifice their faith. They just get a temporary stay of execution. Complained Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.” Even the Washington Post editorialized that the administration failed to “make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”
Yet in the Twilight Zone on the American Left it is Christians who are attempting to impose their views. Religious liberty, declared the ACLU’s Melling, “does not give religious groups the right to impose their beliefs on others.” Not wanting to pay for someone else’s decision to engage in what one views as immoral behavior now is defined as imposing one’s beliefs. George Orwell, call your office!
What do the administration’s religious supporters think of this direct attack on religious faith? Although the rule is supported by some churches which typically view politics as the only real transcendent, a number of believers on the Left are unhappy. For instance, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne accused the administration of tossing “his progressive Catholic allies under the bus.”
The president has spoken eloquently about the relationship of religion and politics, proclaiming his desire to “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.” But the rule demonstrates extraordinary insensitivity, if not outright hostility, to faith. Indeed, Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner argued that the “administration has declared war on the Catholic Church and religious liberty.” That may be giving administration officials too much credit for malice aforethought, but more than a few people do wish religious believers ill.
The American Spectator’s Jim Antle pointed out that “You don’t have to look very far to find comments suggesting that this rule is a good way to stick it to churches whose social teachings are deemed too reactionary.” Some people would like to see the government put religious groups out of business, or at least stop them from doing anything other than holding an occasional private worship service.
The administration’s attack on religion vividly demonstrates the underlying danger of the ever-expanding federal welfare state. As government takes over ever more private responsibilities, it imposes the beliefs of those who have seized control of the state. In practice today that usually means a secularist and paternalist orientation. Indeed, for decades authoritarian liberals have been working assiduously, despite the efforts of the Religious Right, to turn the national government into “an instrument of culture war,” as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat put it. He worries that the current fight is “an intimation of a darker American future, in which our voluntary communities wither away and government becomes the only word we have for the things we do together.”
Such an apocalyptic vision might be an exaggeration, but for decades government has been consciously constricting the private, voluntary sphere of life. Educational and social services of all sorts once were provided by private and especially religious institutions. Government has increasingly pushed them aside.
First, people are less likely to give their own resources when government is seen as “taking care” of the problem. Second, just as Gresham’s law tells us that bad money pushes out good, government welfare pushes out private charity. After all, why seek private aid tied to personal reform if government offers an easier payout?
Third, many private organizations are non-governmental in name only, receiving most of their resources from government. With money naturally come restrictions, which typically weigh most heavily on religious organizations with a faith to spread. Through Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps and George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative the government even pays volunteers to work for private charities and directly funds religious groups.
Now the Obama administration is using its broader regulatory power to suppress the very religious values which make faith-based organizations unique. Freedom of conscience is a bedrock liberty, inherent to the human person created in the image of God, not a privilege based on the whim of the state. Yet under the administration rule even if you don’t take Caesar’s coin you will find it hard to avoid his idolatrous demands.
Facing a potentially difficult reelection, the president could decide to expand the exemption before November. Congress also could legislate an exemption, as proposed by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE).
But such steps merely would treat symptoms. The purpose of ObamaCare is to shift health care decisions to Washington. In this case, religious believers are merely collateral damage. Washington should not be writing health insurance policies for Americans, whatever their faith. ObamaCare should be repealed for this reason alone.
However, the threat posed by Washington to Americans’ liberties goes far beyond medicine. The contraception rule should act as a clarion call for religious believers to resist the continued expansion of state power even for supposedly beneficent purposes. The regulation is a direct attack on religious faith with no serious, let alone compelling, justification.
-
Bishop: New Mandate Goes Against Catholicism
By Jon Berg
Published: February 5, 2012, 10:00 PM
SIOUX FALLS, SD - A new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is causing a lot of controversy within the Catholic church.
Bishops from across the country, including right here in South Dakota, say the rule compromises religious freedom.
Hundreds of thousands of Catholics attended mass across the country Sunday, and many were told about the new healthcare mandate that religious leaders believe is a violation of the church's beliefs.
"It's a core issue of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, Bishops all across the country are responding in the same way because we feel as if our freedom of religion, our ability to live out the church teachings are being compromised by this regulation that's come out of the department of human services," Bishop Paul Swain with the Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese said.
The new mandate requires all employers that provide health insurance, including faith-based ones, to provide and pay for all forms of contraception, including birth control. Swain says the mandate strikes at the very core of the country's rights.
"We have the freedom to exercise individually and as church what we believe free from the interference of government at any level I mean that's what the first amendment was all about," Swain said.
And Swain says this is a step beyond what has happened in the past. Before, the government has created a conscience clause, which allows you to be exempt from the regulation if it goes against your beliefs, but that isn't the case with this mandate.
"If you provide health insurance to your employees then you must provide this coverage and pay for it even though it goes against core teaching, core beliefs," Swain said.
Swain hopes the regulation will be modified in such a way that can be true to the Catholic Church's teachings, and not be forced to conform under government pressure.
"The first amendment is there for a purpose, to protect this very type of thing," Swain said.
The Catholic Church has one year to comply with the new mandate, which goes into effect in January 2013. South Dakota senator John Thune and Representative Kristi Noem have both signed on to different challenges to the mandate.
-
Obama appointee muzzled Army chaplains, forbade reading of anti-Obamacare Catholic Archdiocese letter
By David Martosko - The Daily Caller 2:49 AM 02/07/2012
The office of the Chief of Chaplains of the U.S. Army forbade Catholic chaplains from reading, in Sunday masses, a letter about a controversial Obamacare mandate from the Catholic Church’s military archbishop. The move, which amounts to the head of Roman Catholic military chaplains calling the Obama administration un-American, will set the stage for a philosophical conflict between Catholic soldiers and their commander-in-chief.
In the forbidden letter, Archbishop Timothy Broglio encouraged Catholics in military congregations to disobey a federal government mandate — part of President Obama’s health care overhaul — requiring Catholic employers to provide health coverage that includes “sterilization , abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception.”
“[T]he Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” Archbishop Broglio had written, “denying Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.”
“And, as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to choose between violating our consciences or dropping health care coverage for our employees (and suffering the penalties for doing so),” he added.
“We cannot—and will not—comply with this unjust law.”
(RELATED: Complete coverage of Obamacare)
Roman Catholic teaching prohibits abortion, contraception, and both vasectomies and tubal ligations. In a Jan. 20 statement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the Obama administration’s policy “literally unconscionable.”
Noting the White House’s sole concession to religious groups – a phase-in period of 12 months – New York City Archbishop and Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, who leads the conference, said, “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”
In the most emotional and charged line of his Jan. 26 letter, Broglio asserted that the Obama administration’s command that Catholics disregard their faith’s policies against contraception and abortion was “a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.”
A press release from the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services warned that the “newly affirmed administration policy will compel Catholics to choose between violating their conscience or dropping employee health coverage.”
The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains saw the letter as an incendiary enough topic to warrant ordering senior chaplains in the Army not to read it from the pulpit.
In a statement first circulated by National Review on Friday, Broglio’s office said he Army office had “sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.”
The statement added that “[f]ollowing a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter.”
Ultimately, the statement said, Broglio agreed — at Secretary McHugh’s “suggestion” during a Jan. 28 phone call — to remove the line “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” from his letter “over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.”
McHugh, a former nine-term Republican congressman from New York, is an Obama appointee.
On Sunday many Catholic priests in U.S. congregations read from the pulpit assorted variations of the same letter Broglio personalized.
Similar letters from bishops in Phoenix, Ariz., Syracuse, N.Y., Marquette, Wisc. and many other Catholic dioceses, included the same “unjust law” line McHugh censored.
Syracuse Bishop Robert Cunninghan told the Syracuse Post-Standard that the Obama administration’s policy “goes against our conscience.”
“It’s wrong,” he said. “Obviously we believe these services which are offered could all be something that is not in accordance with the teaching of the church. So we don’t wish to cooperate with that.”
New York Republican Rep Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle has expressed interest in sponsoring a House bill to repeal the portions of the Obamacare mandate that she said violate Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religious expression.
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio has already introduced a bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012. It has 22 Senate co-sponsors.
“This issue is not just a Catholic Church issue,” Rep. Beurkle told the Post-Standard. “This is really a war on all religions. If they can make this rule with the Catholic Church, all religions should be very concerned about this.”
“This is the government saying, ‘Set your beliefs aside, and we know what is best for you,’” she added. “It has a chilling effect on all religions. It’s an overreach of the federal government. And it’s a dangerous precedent.”
Follow David on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/07/obama-appointee-muzzled-army-chaplains-forbade-reading-of-catholic-archdiocese-letter-critical-of-obamacare/#ixzz1li1XRDvr
-
Jesus is this article serious the analogy is retarded the reasoning piss poor where do you get this shit?
so they just dont have to use it, you think they deserve special attention with special health care plans. In fact he is doing the opposite of what this piece of shit article claims.
FUCKING MORONS
he is stating seperation of church and state, the gov makes no endorsement for any religion. Thus if he gives the catholics special health plans, why not muslims, why not atheists etc.. why because he is seperating church and state you fucktard, they get what everyone else gets no special treatment. They dont even pay fucking taxes, they are leachs who rape kids, fuck off. They are the scum of the earth, they have wealth and live like kings, they say condoms are evil despite being wrong.
The catholic church is a force for evil, its been debated and majority opinion agrees.
so you are a socialist now, the church should pay no taxes and have special health care plans because of there beliefs? what about muslims, what about shamans?
whoever wrote that article is retarded
Headline:
"obama wont give special interests to churchs tells them to start paying taxes or buy there own healthcare like many americans with all that tax free money".
the church has billions
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617
and your mad they can't get everything they want in a health care plan while at the same time being tax exempt? fuck off you commie
LOL obama is a smart man, to smart for you because you have no insight into why he is doing these things, please don't vote.
-
The govt has no more business forcing catholics to do this as it does forcing Muslims to serve pork in resturants as a public accomodation or Jews to obey the Sabbath on a day other than Saturday.
Again - why do you want the govt to be able to force everyone to obey it wo regard to individual sensibilities regarding religion or other traditional and cultural norms?
Take your leftist authoritarian bullshit and choke to death on it.
-
Obama’s senior political adviser urges all sides in birth control fight to ‘lower our voices’
Washington Post ^ | 2/7/2012 | ap
A political adviser to President Barack Obama said Tuesday the administration didn’t intend to “abridge anyone’s religious freedom” with its regulation requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control for their workers.
“This is an important issue. It’s important for millions of women around the country,” said Axelrod, the political adviser to Obama’s re-election campaign. “We want to resolve it in an appropriate way and we’re going to do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a liar. The issue is the Church being FORCED to pay for this, no whether or not it is available.
Why can't these people pay for it themselves or seek another employer if they are not happy with the coverage at their place of employment?
-
Allentown diocese to workers: Contraception mandate could end health benefit
The Morning Call ^ | Peter Hall
Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:30:17
The Diocese of Allentown has enlisted its workers in a fight to defeat an Obama administration mandate that religious employers pay for contraceptives and other reproductive health care services.
Unless the rule is overturned, the Catholic diocese would end health care benefits altogether for about 1,000 teachers, administrators and other employees when it takes effect in August 2013, the diocese warned in a letter last week.
"The Church cannot be placed in the moral position of directly funding abortions and contraception through these imposed health care reforms," diocese Vicar General Alfred A. Schlert wrote to employees. "Therefore, the only option the Church will have if these rulings are not overturned is not to directly provide a health benefit to our employees," the Feb. 1 letter says.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
________________________ ________________________ __________________
Another Obama abortion at work. Put the church in an untenable situation unless they bow to his ring, and then attack them for not complying, all while the workers are cannon fodder to thugbama's tyranny.
-
Ave Maria University caught in contraception controversy ["we're going to fight it"]
WINK News ^ | 2/6/2012 | Staff
Posted on Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:40:26
A national controversy over contraception is hitting home in Southwest Florida.
"You talk about religious intolerance, this is about as bad as it gets," Ave Maria University President Jim Towey said.
A new provision under President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act will require most church-affiliated employers to blanket free birth control under their health insurance plans.
Ave Maria University is just one of the institutions forced to change their coverage.
"We certainly understand universities that was to provide contraceptive services. People can disagree on that issue. But nobody should be obliged to violate it's moral principles and conscience," Towey said Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at winknews.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The Catholic Church Has Launched A Fight Against Obama That's Unprecedented In American History
Michael Brendan Dougherty | 34 minutes ago | 1,263 | 17
A A A
inShare.1
AP
We've been talking about this emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration for two weeks, and last night and this morning it exploded all over the mainstream media.
The basics are this: the department of Health and Human services issued a regulation that all non-Church religious intitutions, like hospitals and schools, had to provide employee health insurance that includes contraception, sterlization, and drugs that the Church maintains are abortifacients.
You might be thinking: Doesn't the Catholic Church oppose all sorts of things? Why are we even talking about this?
Well, it's true that the Catholic Church opposes legal abortion, it opposed liberalized divorce laws. The current pope and the last one opposed the Iraq War, etc.
But in this case, the government will force the Church's institutions (hospitals, schools, charities) to act in a way Catholics consider sinful: to directly buy insurance for birth control, sterilization, and drugs that act as abortifacients. No, the government isn't forcing employees to use those insured services. But forcing Catholic institutions to pay for those services makes the Church complicit in those acts.
And the response of Catholics to the ruling was immediate and harsh.
Put simply: there is simply no time in American history we can recall where nearly the entire body of American Catholic bishops and priests have united to speak against a sitting president by name, and promised civil disobedience.
In the 19th century, there were fights about the rights of Catholics, mostly related to education. The dynamic Bishop John Hughes who ruled the New York Archdiocese from 1842-1864 spoke out fiercely against the indoctrination of Catholic students in the King James Bible in public schools, and promised to work for the conversion of all Americans. The 1884 Republican presidential candidate, James G. Blaine ran on a platform of banning government funds to "sectarian schools"–meaning Catholic schools–at a time when public schools almost universally indoctrinated students in Protestantism. He lost.
But even then we were dealing with local issues.
This effects hundreds of institutions, and the largest non-profit sector of the health-care economy.
By ruling that the "conscience exemption" only applies to Catholic Churches and institutions that primarily educate people in the faith or serve almost exclusively fellow Catholics, the Obama administration has effectively said that Catholics only exist in the pews. The moment they step outside a Church to help the sick, feed the hungry, or otherwise serve and employ non-Catholics, they are no longer allowed to follow their religious dictates.
Rev. Larry Snyder, President of Catholic Charities USA pointed out that the regulations would say that the ministry of Jesus Christ himself was not "religious" because he was doing health-care, activism on behalf of the poor, and interacting with people of other religions all the time.
In effect, the government is deciding what does and what doesn't qualify as Catholicism, and where it allowed.
And although all Catholic hospitals do take government money through Medicare, Medicaid and other programs, the rule is not at all connected to the reception of government funds; it applies to all employers.
And now the Bishops are reported to be discussing organizing an enormous march on Washington to protest the law, and, indirectly, the president himself.
This battle is just beginning.
Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Michael Brendan Dougherty on Twitter.
Ask Michael A Question >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-catholic-churchs-fight-against-obama-is-totally-unprecedented-in-american-history-2012-2#ixzz1lioGy96z
The only thing "unprecedented" is having a communist marxist treaitor and neo-islamist sleeper cell POTUS like thugbama in office.
-
Dem Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper: I Wouldn't Have Voted for Obamacare If I'd Known About HHS Regulation
John McCormack
February 7, 2012 12:46 PM
Former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pennsylvania, cast a crucial vote in favor of Obamacare in 2010. She lost her seat that November in part because of her controversial support of Obamacare. But Dahlkemper said recently that she would have never voted for the health care bill had she known that the Department of Health and Human Services would require all private insurers, including Catholic charities and hospitals, to provide free coverage of contraception, sterilization procedures, and the "week-after" pill "ella" that can induce early abortions.
"I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception,” Dahlkemper said in a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November. "We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage."
Of course, most abortion opponents disagree with Dahlkemper that the HHS regulation is Obamacare's only moral problem. Under Obamacare, each state's federally subsidized health care exchange is required to offer a health insurance plan that covers elective abortions unless the state passes a law opting out of the requirement.
As former Democratic congressman Bart Stupak said when the Senate passed Obamacare in December of 2009, "A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage. Further, the segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage."
Stupak, Dahlkemper, and a handful of other Democrats who held back on voting for final passage of Obamacare eventually voted for the exact same language in the Senate bill because the president signed an executive order saying the law wouldn't fund abortions.
But the executive order signed by President Obama did nothing to prevent the subsidized health care exchanges from covering elective abortions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!
Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.
Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-kathy-dahlkemper-i-wouldnt-have-voted-obamacare-if-id-known-about-hhs-regulation_626302.html
LOL - this c v n t got exactly what she deserved siding with Obama on this. Fuck her and every disgusting traitorous pofs supporting obama. you rats all deserve each other in a feces infested sewer.
-
WH: Signatures to Rescind HHS Contraceptive Mandate Exceed Those on Petition in Favor by 5 to 1
CNS News ^ | February 6, 2012 | Edwin Mora
(CNSNews.com) – A petition calling for the U.S. Health and Human Services’ contraceptives and abortifacients mandate to be rescinded has attracted five times more signatures than a petition urging the administration to retain the policy.
According to “We the People” hosted by Whitehouse.gov, 21,690 Americans had signed a petition entitled, “Rescind the HHS Dept. Mandate Requiring Catholic Employers to Provide Contraceptives/ Abortifacients to Their Employees” as of 4 p.m. Monday.
Meanwhile, as of 4 p.m. Monday, only 4,145 Americans had signed a petition entitled “Stand Strong in Support of New No-Cost Birth Control Policy,” which is in favor of the HHS mandate.
That means that, 5 to 1, more Americans have signed the petition in opposition to the mandate. Those are the only two petitions published on We the People that focus on the HHS mandate, which effective in August, will force religious entities such as hospitals and universities to provide health insurance plans to employees that subsidize sterilizations and contraception, including abortifacients such as the morning after pill.
Catholic leaders have said that the exemption for religious entities included in the mandate is too narrow.
According to “We the People,” 150 signatures are required for the White House to post the petition on their Web site, and 25,000 signatures within 30 days of submission are needed to elicit an official response.
Those in favor of the policy have until March 3 to reach the 25,000 signatures needed to get an official response, and those who want the mandate rescinded have until Feb. 27 to reach the 25,000 threshold. So that means that the petitions were submitted less than a week apart from each other. The one in opposition was submitted first.
That petition, which was created on Jan. 28, notes that HHS “is mandating that all employer healthcare insurance plans provide coverage for procedures which violate the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and Catholic institutions.”
“Basically, the new rules require the Catholic Church, and the institutions operating faithfully under the aegis of the Church, to provide coverage for contraceptive drugs and procedures,” it continued. “This requirement violates the beliefs of the Church.”
“Never before has the United States Government deigned to represent "transcendental truth" on matters of conscience for any religion within these United States,” it further stated. “That in itself is unprecedented, which is also why it is unconstitutional.”
The petition in favor of the policy, created on Feb. 3 stated, “Thanks to the Obama administration, nearly all women will soon have access to birth-control coverage at no cost. It’s a huge victory for our country, where 99 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives.”
“In developing this policy that will significantly improve women’s health, the Obama administration resisted a pressure campaign from anti-contraception groups,” it added. “These groups wanted to allow many employers, including universities and hospitals, to refuse to cover birth control.
“Unfortunately, those anti-contraception groups continue to call on the White House to rescind its policy,” the petition further stated. “It’s up to pro-choice Americans to speak up for birth-control coverage. Sign your name to let the administration know that you are with them 100 percent.”
The petition to do away with the policy echoes concerns by Catholic Church leaders, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who argue that the mandate is an unprecedented attack on religious freedom and have called on the Obama administration to rescind it. HHS will begin enforcing the policy in August and has given religious organizations an extra year to implement the mandate.
Despite concerns by the Catholic community including over 100 bishops and leaders of other denominations, the White House last week said that there is: ‘no constitutional rights issues’ surrounding the mandate.
Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a Catholic, has introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which will overturn the HHS mandate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Obama Declares War On The Catholic Church: An Explainer
Michael Brendan Dougherty | 46 minutes ago | 701 | 23
Do you find this sudden rush of stories about Obama being in open conflict with the Catholic Church confusing?
We've done a simple Q&A to help clear things up.
So what happened?
A little over two weeks ago, the Department of Health and Human Services said that the new health-care reforms from Obama would require religious employers–like hospitals, schools, etc.–to include contraception, sterilization, and drugs that many Catholics believe cause early abortions, in their employee health insurance plans.
And, what's the problem?
Well, Catholics consider paying for those things sinful. So they are flaming mad at Obama. And Catholic priests have been reading a letter to almost all Catholics at church promising that the Church "cannot–and will not–obey this unjust law." This is pretty much unprecedented.
It seems like there is some subtext to this, right?
You betcha. Most of the bishops supported Obama's health-care reform precisely because they believed they had assurances this wouldn't happen.
Why is this a big deal though? This is a minority issue, no?
Well not exactly. The Church has built or maintains about 625 non-profit hospitals in the United States right now. 1 in 8 hospital visits in America are to Catholic hospitals. It's the largest non-profit sector of the health-care industry by a long shot.
Whoa that's a lot.
Yeah–and then there are the schools. About 65,000 professors work at over 230 Catholic universities and colleges in America. And then there are secondary schools, etc. And charity organizations.
AP/FlickrUser Catholic Church (England and Wales)-Creative Commons
But aren't hospitals and schools really secular enterprises?
So when Jesus said heal the sick and feed the poor it had nothing to do with religion? Not sure that is going to fly. But that brings up the point that the Obama administration seems to be saying; that anything a religious person does outside of a Church or with someone who isn't part of their religion is somehow not-religious. In fact, it can't help but make that judgment.
But isn't the Church just a criminal enterprise of child-molesting freaks! I can't wait until the day it dies. It is based on fairy-tales!
We've been seeing a lot of comments like this. And well, it seems unlikely that the Church of approximately 70 million people here and a billion worldwide is going to go away tomorrow. Also, a lot of people of all faiths wouldn't have non-profit hospitals. Is this how you talk to people you meet?
All right, it's not going away, but the Church's teaching against contraception is really stupid. They're just against contraception because they hate women and their bodies.
You don't take away people's rights because you disagree with them.
And, as for their rationale, it was re-explained in the 1960s in a document called Humane Vitae. Basically, the idea is that love, sex, marriage, and procreation all go together. Lots of Catholics do actually try to follow this, and use methods like NFP to regulate their fertility.
I read that 98 percent of Catholics have used artificial contraception anyway.
Yeah. That seems to be mostly true.
So they are on Obama's side. He's got this.
Not necessarily. What percentage of Catholics commit sins like lying or gossip? Writers like E.J. Dionne and Michael Sean Winters both question the Church's teaching on this, but they are against Obama on this. They may disagree with the Church but they don't like seeing it being pushed around by the government. That represents the attitude of a lot of Catholics.
Isn't this a case of conflicting rights?
Yes, basically. Proponents of the regulation say that women of all faiths have a right to health-care and the way we provide health-care in this country is through employer-based health insurance. If contraception and sterilization and all these other things are health-care, then employers have to provide it. To them this is a simple uncontroversial idea, hindered only by the dogmas of a medieval Church.
All right, who's going to cave?
Hard to say. If a Republican is elected in November, the regulation is going away anyway.
Sometimes in history the Church has caved to governments on matters of principle. And Obama's re-election looks probable. But, look, there are big pockets of Catholic voters in Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other swing states. If the Church makes a big deal, there might be good reason for Obama to cave.
And, the Church has survived Nero's persecution, and Napoleon's kidnapping of the pope. So, yeah, it can probably outmaneuver some regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-declares-war-on-the-catholic-church-an-explainer-2012-2#ixzz1ljUlrJrw
Hope and Change assholes.
-
The govt has no more business forcing catholics to do this as it does forcing Muslims to serve pork in resturants as a public accomodation or Jews to obey the Sabbath on a day other than Saturday.
Again - why do you want the govt to be able to force everyone to obey it wo regard to individual sensibilities regarding religion or other traditional and cultural norms?
Take your leftist authoritarian bullshit and choke to death on it.
these fucks pay no taxes you nit wit, they are sucking on the gov teet so hard they should have to do what the gov says because its our money in the end, fuck them child rapist rich motherfuckers, they can simply pay taxes or purchase there own fucking healthcare
sensibilities? lol religion needs to fucking go, its the basis of evil. This church hides child rapists and sits on billions, cries when they are forced to do something that is of great benefit and its not paid for by them.
I want them off of the gov you want more gov, i want the gov to say fuck off and do as you please. Fuck the church fuck the police, fuck um.
these commie bastards fawking dont pay taxes, fuck kids, hide rapists and expect handouts. Not to mention these fawks fucking are stupid and denying birth control is immoral and as a doctor i would not do it, fuck em on that one to.
This whole thing is bullshit, fuck the church, fuck them not wanting birthcare for others, telling others how they should live. fuck you if someone in your church wants birth control they should be able to get it. Im for freedom, you are not.
fuck the church, fuck the pastors saying no birth control to young woman in the church, fuck them for raping, fuck um for hiding the rape, fuck them for being rich, highest salary per capita and fuck um for paying no taxes and whining about gov infringement, get out of here commie rapists, go fend for yourself.
you are so ridiculous you cant even keep your arguments straight. You meltdown all over the place, my keyboard is covered in wax from this bullshit. Seriously stay away from the voting booth. Keep saying your anti government while you defend the people at the church getting massive handouts litterally billions, keep blaming those negroes.
-
Yawn. Read the article above. Your arguments are destroyed.
-
Obama Declares War On The Catholic Church: An Explainer
Michael Brendan Dougherty | 46 minutes ago | 701 | 23
Do you find this sudden rush of stories about Obama being in open conflict with the Catholic Church confusing?
We've done a simple Q&A to help clear things up.
So what happened?
A little over two weeks ago, the Department of Health and Human Services said that the new health-care reforms from Obama would require religious employers–like hospitals, schools, etc.–to include contraception, sterilization, and drugs that many Catholics believe cause early abortions, in their employee health insurance plans.
And, what's the problem?
Well, Catholics consider paying for those things sinful. So they are flaming mad at Obama. And Catholic priests have been reading a letter to almost all Catholics at church promising that the Church "cannot–and will not–obey this unjust law." This is pretty much unprecedented.
It seems like there is some subtext to this, right?
You betcha. Most of the bishops supported Obama's health-care reform precisely because they believed they had assurances this wouldn't happen.
Why is this a big deal though? This is a minority issue, no?
Well not exactly. The Church has built or maintains about 625 non-profit hospitals in the United States right now. 1 in 8 hospital visits in America are to Catholic hospitals. It's the largest non-profit sector of the health-care industry by a long shot.
Whoa that's a lot.
Yeah–and then there are the schools. About 65,000 professors work at over 230 Catholic universities and colleges in America. And then there are secondary schools, etc. And charity organizations.
AP/FlickrUser Catholic Church (England and Wales)-Creative Commons
But aren't hospitals and schools really secular enterprises?
So when Jesus said heal the sick and feed the poor it had nothing to do with religion? Not sure that is going to fly. But that brings up the point that the Obama administration seems to be saying; that anything a religious person does outside of a Church or with someone who isn't part of their religion is somehow not-religious. In fact, it can't help but make that judgment.
But isn't the Church just a criminal enterprise of child-molesting freaks! I can't wait until the day it dies. It is based on fairy-tales!
We've been seeing a lot of comments like this. And well, it seems unlikely that the Church of approximately 70 million people here and a billion worldwide is going to go away tomorrow. Also, a lot of people of all faiths wouldn't have non-profit hospitals. Is this how you talk to people you meet?
All right, it's not going away, but the Church's teaching against contraception is really stupid. They're just against contraception because they hate women and their bodies.
You don't take away people's rights because you disagree with them.
And, as for their rationale, it was re-explained in the 1960s in a document called Humane Vitae. Basically, the idea is that love, sex, marriage, and procreation all go together. Lots of Catholics do actually try to follow this, and use methods like NFP to regulate their fertility.
I read that 98 percent of Catholics have used artificial contraception anyway.
Yeah. That seems to be mostly true.
So they are on Obama's side. He's got this.
Not necessarily. What percentage of Catholics commit sins like lying or gossip? Writers like E.J. Dionne and Michael Sean Winters both question the Church's teaching on this, but they are against Obama on this. They may disagree with the Church but they don't like seeing it being pushed around by the government. That represents the attitude of a lot of Catholics.
Isn't this a case of conflicting rights?
Yes, basically. Proponents of the regulation say that women of all faiths have a right to health-care and the way we provide health-care in this country is through employer-based health insurance. If contraception and sterilization and all these other things are health-care, then employers have to provide it. To them this is a simple uncontroversial idea, hindered only by the dogmas of a medieval Church.
All right, who's going to cave?
Hard to say. If a Republican is elected in November, the regulation is going away anyway.
Sometimes in history the Church has caved to governments on matters of principle. And Obama's re-election looks probable. But, look, there are big pockets of Catholic voters in Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other swing states. If the Church makes a big deal, there might be good reason for Obama to cave.
And, the Church has survived Nero's persecution, and Napoleon's kidnapping of the pope. So, yeah, it can probably outmaneuver some regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-declares-war-on-the-catholic-church-an-explainer-2012-2#ixzz1ljUlrJrw
Hope and Change assholes.
holy fuck this is pure screed.
you stupid fuck saying you have to have pork in your shop to a jew is nothing like saying you have to have birth control availible to your employees if you take this plan, if you suck our teet more.
its uncomfortable to have non jew meats around jews, but its much worse to ethically deny a person birth control if they choose them based on some sky daddy story and incorrect health ruining information. So what the church doesnt like birth control, if they dont like polio they can not have the vaccine, but get the fuck outta this country because im not dying for your stupid decisions.
Lol birth control ( one a life saving, serious medication to be prescribed by a physician) versus jews having meat in there store. You are also missing the point where the church are teet suckers. If i owned the jew shop like the gov does the healthcare i would then have a righ to tell the jew to have non jewy meats right? well if so shut the fuck up you son of a bitch, you stupid stupid human.
where doyou live im cumming foru lke dis if u cry erytim
-
Yawn. Read the article above. Your arguments are destroyed.
yawn hehe
your right that article did rebut me quite well, guess free republic wins again.
great debate we had tonight, thanks chap
-
Why can't these employees pay for it seperately?
-
Dumbass Catholics, lol. You wanna know why the crime rates are a lot lower today in spite of the awful economy? Its abortion, you silly dolts. Most abortions that would have otherwise lived would've likely only added to the prison population with one or more innocent victims in their wake. Organized religion is nothing more than a cult that puts dogma ahead of reason and logic. The rejection of reason and logic in favor of ghosts, phantoms, spirits, gods, etc is a direct attack on the progression of mankind.
Tax the Church. Tax the Mosques. Tax the Temples.
End tolerance. Tolerance is nothing more than rejection of logic, reason, and the dignity of man.
-
yawn hehe
your right that article did rebut me quite well, guess free republic wins again.
great debate we had tonight, thanks chap
Why cant people pay for it on their own if their employer doeas not pay for it.
If i go to work for a muslim charity should I be able to dictate what they serve in the lunchroom?
-
Dumbass Catholics, lol. You wanna know why the crime rates are a lot lower today in spite of the awful economy? Its abortion, you silly dolts. Most abortions that would have otherwise lived would've likely only added to the prison population with one or more innocent victims in their wake. Organized religion is nothing more than a cult that puts dogma ahead of reason and logic. The rejection of reason and logic in favor of ghosts, phantoms, spirits, gods, etc is a direct attack on the progression of mankind.
Tax the Church. Tax the Mosques. Tax the Temples.
End tolerance. Tolerance is nothing more than rejection of logic, reason, and the dignity of man.
Your hatred of religion aside - what does that have to do with anything? The issue is the govt FORCING people to pay for things that violate their conscience. is that ok with you?
-
Your hatred of religion aside - what does that have to do with anything? The issue is the govt FORCING people to pay for things that violate their conscience. is that ok with you?
I don't exactly hate religion...hate is a rather strong word. And...the government forces me to pay for things which go against my conscience all the time. My tax dollars go fund unnecessary military adventures overseas. My tax dollars go to feeding, clothing, and sheltering able bodied people who are otherwise able to work but choose not to. We can go on ;)
From what I understand in the little I've read on the issue, is it not just the vendors and employee outside of the church having to fund this? It seems rather broad-based to assume Obama himself is attacking Catholicism much less religion as a whole.
-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1
Pundits and bishops warn President Obama he could lose the white Catholic vote over requiring a contraception option for insurance plans. But Catholic women side with Obama on this, a new survey says.
The pivot point is how you see this. Is it a battle is over birth control -- used by 98% of U.S. women at some time in their lives -- or over government intrusion into the right of religious organizations to live by their teachings?
The Catholic bishops, backed by conservative evangelicals, say the federal government should not include contraception coverage as part of free preventive care options in employers' health insurance plans.
<snip>,
A majority (55%) of Americans agree that "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost." Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
-
Amazing - truly amazing how stupid people are.
If 55% said - "I want my employer to provide lunch and dinner with no cost to me" do those same idiots really think that they will not be paying for the food elsewhere?
These same 55% of idiots are going to be the first ones to complain when they are forced to pay more for premiums, get no raises, have any raises eaten up by higher health costs, or simply get fired.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "FREE" BLACKASS.
-
:)
-
cheaper to not have them now then to take care of someones kid until their 18 :o
-
cheaper to not have them now then to take care of someones kid until threir 18 :o
That is not the issue. If killing every black in the bronx and brooklyn, resulted in a crime rate drop of 100% would you be ok with that?
-
Six Things Everyone Should Know about the HHS Mandate
Caritas Veritas ^ | February 7, 2012
The USCCB continues its campaign against the HHS Mandate that forces religious employers and institutions to purchase services that go against their religion.
Here is the text that can be found at the USCCB website:
1. The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them "religious employers" worthy of conscience protection, because they do not "serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets." HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.
2. The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs; forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.
3. The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the "contraceptive mandate," HHS's mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization. And, by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as "Ella," a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.
4. Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate. Catholics who have long supported this Administration and its healthcare policies have publicly criticized HHS's decision, including columnists E.J. Dionne, Mark Shields, and Michael Sean Winters; college presidents Father John Jenkins and Arturo Chavez; and Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States.
5. Many other religious and secular people and groups have spoken out strongly against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, even if they disagree with the Church on the underlying moral question. For example, Protestant Christian, Orthodox Christian, and Orthodox Jewish groups--none of which oppose contraception--have issued statements against the decision. The Washington Post, USA Today, N.Y. Daily News, Detroit News, and other secular outlets, columnists, and bloggers have editorialized against it.
6. The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon). Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.
-
White House May Look to Compromise on Contraception Decision [Obama Delays For 2nd Term Vengeance?]
NY Times ^ | February 07, 2012 | MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Posted on February 7, 2012 8:59:38 PM EST by Steelfish
February 7, 2012 White House May Look to Compromise on Contraception Decision By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
The White House may be open to compromising on a new rule that requires religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control, a senior strategist for President Obama said on Tuesday morning.
David Axelrod, who serves as a top adviser to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that the president would “look for a way” to address the vocal opposition from Catholic groups who say the rule forces them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception.
“We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,” Mr. Axelrod said.
The comments come as last month’s decision has prompted a furor among religious groups while providing Mr. Obama’s Republican opponents with fresh ammunition to claim that the president wants the federal government to control the provision of health care.
Mitt Romney, the president’s likely Republican opponent in the fall, seized on the issue in a campaign appearance in Colorado late Monday evening.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes. com ...
-
Skip to comments.
‘I am going to stick with fellow Catholics’ in Pres. Obama’s war on Catholics. Wherein Fr. Z rants.
What Does The Prayer Really Say? ^ | February 7, 2012 | Father John Zuhlsdorf
Posted on February 7, 2012 7:02:46 PM EST by sayuncledave
/>Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), catholic and openly an abortion absolutist, is from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, but she spends most of her time in Washington DC. She has at least quasi-domicile in the Archdiocese of Washington DC.
She is Archbishop Niederauer’s and Card. Wuerl’s subject it seems, and yet – year after year – she, saying openly that she is “catholic”, runs her mouth off with deeply and stupidly wicked remarks such as what follows.
From Life Site News:
Pelosi: ‘I am going to stick with fellow Catholics’ in supporting Obama birth control mandate
BY CHRISTINE DHANAGOM
February 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Even as the United States’ Catholic bishops have launched an all-out campaign against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and urged their flocks to resistance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has invoked the support of “fellow Catholics” to justify her position in favor of the mandate.
Pelosi was confronted at last Wednesday’s press briefing by a reporter from CNSnews.com, who began by pointing out that the mandate, which requires all employers to cover all sterilizations and contraception, including drugs that can cause early abortions, forces Catholic individuals and institutions to act against Church teaching.
Irritated, Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, [catholic] interrupted: “Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?”
The reporter continued, citing a letter from the U.S. bishops, in which the bishops vowed not to comply with the law, and asked: “will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the Administration?”
[Pelosi answered:] “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” the minority leader responded. [I'm going to stick with my fellow Catholics?]
[...]
In an interview with the Washington Post this past November, she acknowledged that many Catholics object to being forced to fund abortions, noting that “they have this conscience thing.”
The former speaker has also said she has “some areas of disagreement” with the country’s bishops, and has claimed that Catholicism does not necessarily condemn abortion.
I call upon Archbishop Niederauer and Card. Wuerl openly to state that Rep. Pelosi should not present herself for Holy Communion in their respective dioceses.
Nancy Pelosi considers it consistent with what Catholics do to take a stand against the bishops in favor of a policy that would force Catholic institutions to violate the teachings of her Church.
Pelosi, as a highly public figure, there are few more visible. She is committing the mortal sin of scandalizing the faithful in a matter which unquestionably grave matter. There has been all manner of discussion concerning her and the issues of abortion, contraception, when life begins, etc. She can’t plead ignorance of the Church’s teachings. She continues to be openly, publicly, scandalous in these matters.
Now, she is taking an open stand against the American bishops in favor of a manifest attack on the Catholic Church by the most aggressively pro-abortion President we have ever seen.
Your Excellency? Your Eminence? How much longer does this have to go on? What else does she have to do?
If I am wrong about this, I will accept correction. I am not canonist, but – for the love of God – I can read. I am not a bishop – thanks be to God – but you don’t have to be a bishop to figure this one out.
Please, somebody, explain to me how we square doing nothing about her scandal with can. 915 and the sacred duty bishops have to protect the flock?
Can. 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law authorized that ministers should withhold holy Communion from those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin“. Can. 915 actually requires ministers to withhold Holy Communion in such cases on pain of dereliction of their sacred office (can. 128 and 1389).
This isn’t a matter of the private conversation of an unknown woman in her living room.
I cannot imagine how anyone can question that Pelosi’s actions, which are public and clear and defiant and wicked and scandalous when it comes to serious matters of life, qualify her as “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”.
For the good of souls, Nancy Pelosi must be denied Holy Communion and the Catholic people should be informed that she is being denied Holy Communion.
“But Father! But Father!” some of are saying. “What about the… the… the… national repercussions? *sputter* What about the media firestorm?”
Damn straight!
Let there be national repercussions and a media firestorm.
Pres. Obama and his administration have openly and aggressively attacked the Catholic Church by trying to force Catholic institutions to perform actions which are evil even by reason alone and natural law, and not just by Catholic doctrine.
Nancy Pelosi has publicly chosen sides against the Catholic Church’s teachings and against the bishops.
Let her choice be publicly confirmed by those same bishops.
Nancy Pelosi must not admitted to Holy Communion until she publicly changes her defiant stance and positions.
-
REVIEW & OUTLOOKFEBRUARY 8, 2012
ObamaCare's Great Awakening
HHS tells religious believers to go to hell. The public notices.
The political furor over President Obama's birth-control mandate continues to grow, even among those for whom contraception poses no moral qualms, and one needn't be a theologian to understand why. The country is being exposed to the raw political control that is the core of the Obama health-care plan, and Americans are seeing clearly for the first time how this will violate pluralism and liberty.
***
In late January the Health and Human Services Department required almost all insurance plans to cover contraceptive and sterilization methods, including the morning-after pill. The decision came after passionate lobbying by religious groups and liberals from the likes of Planned Parenthood, amid government promises of compromise.
Getty Images
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
In the end, Planned Parenthood won. HHS chose to draw the rule's conscience exceptions for "religious employers" so narrowly that they will not be extended to religious charities, universities, schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other institutions that oppose contraception as a matter of religious belief.
The Affordable Care Act itself is ambiguous about what counts as a religious organization that deserves conscience protection. Like so much else in the rushed bill, this was left to administrative discretion. What the law does cement is the principle that the government will decide for everyone what "health care" must mean. The entire thrust of ObamaCare is to standardize benefits and how they must be paid for and provided, regardless of individual choices or ethical convictions.
To take a small example: The HHS rule prohibits out-of-pocket costs for birth control, simply because Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's regulators believe no woman should have to pay anything for it. To take a larger example: The Obama Administration's legal defense of the mandate to buy insurance or else pay a penalty is that the mere fact of being alive gives the government the right to regulate all Americans at every point in their lives.
Practicing this kind of compulsion is routine and noncontroversial within Ms. Sebelius's ministry. That may explain why her staff didn't notice that the birth-control rule abridges the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom. Then again, maybe HHS thought the public had become inured to such edicts, which have arrived every few weeks since the Affordable Care Act passed.
Bad call. The decision has roused the Catholic bishops from their health-care naivete, but they've been joined by people of all faiths and even no faith, as it becomes clear that their own deepest moral beliefs may be thrown over eventually. Contraception is the single most prescribed medicine for women between 18 and 44 years old, and nine of 10 insurers and employers already cover it. Yet HHS still decided to rub it in the face of religious hospitals.
Mr. Obama's allies among Catholic liberals are also professing shock—even the Catholic Health Association's Sister Carol Keehan, who lobbied for ObamaCare, and Notre Dame's Father John Jenkins, who invited Mr. Obama to speak on campus in 2009. But if they now claim they were taken for a ride by the secular left, the truth is that they wanted to be deceived in the name of their grander goal of government-enforced equity. The Catholic left was one of ObamaCare's great enablers.
Related Video
Columnist Bill McGurn on the Obama administration's rule requiring religious institutions to cover contraception and sterilization in their health plans. Plus, is the Obama administration considering dropping Joe Biden from the ticket?
Speaking of scales from the eyes, we're eager to hear from former Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak, who for a brief moment led a faction of pro-life Democrats against ObamaCare in 2010. They surrendered when Mr. Obama gave them the fig leaf of an executive order that will supposedly prevent federal funds from subsidizing abortions. Mr. Stupak is now a lobbyist at the D.C. law firm Venable LLP.
This is also a teaching moment for Mitt Romney, who has joined the calls to defend "the right to worship in the way of our own choice," as he put it in a Colorado speech on Monday. "This is a violation of conscience. We must have a President who is willing to protect America's first right, our right to worship God," he added.
This is fine as far as it goes, but as usual the GOP front-runner is missing the larger policy and moral issue. The HHS diktat isn't something unique to President Obama. It is the political essence of government-run medicine. When politics determines who can or should receive what benefits, and who pays what for it, government will use its force to dictate the outcomes that it wants—either for reasons of cost, or to promote its values, which in this case means that "women's health" trumps religious conscience.
If Mr. Romney can't make the obvious connection between this infringement of American values and all the other infringements that are inherent in government health care, then he needs better political advisers.
***
The White House is now trying to cauterize the political damage and saying it is open to some "compromise" on its own contraception decision. But the rule is already final. HHS tried to sell it as a compromise when it was announced, and in any case HHS would revive this coercion whenever it is politically convenient some time in Mr. Obama's second term. Religious liberty won't be protected from the entitlement state until ObamaCare is repealed.
Via WSJ. It's not about Catholics people - it's about obamas tyranny.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/209017-obama-faces-backlash-over-birth-control-rule
Good. This issue is blowing up in this assholes face.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Morning Bell: Obamacare Awakens a Sleeping Giant
Heritage Foundation ^ | February 7, 2012 | Mike Brownfield
Posted on February 7, 2012 6:21:16 PM EST by NYer
It is a rare moment indeed when faith denominations of all stripes unite together in common cause, and it is rarer still when that cause is a political one, with a sole piece of legislation as its principal target. But when that law eviscerates the very foundation of religious liberty in America as protected under the First Amendment, it should not be surprising that Catholics and Jews, evangelical Christians, and mainline Lutherans alike find common cause in defense of their liberties.
Such is the case with the firestorm of opposition to Obamacare and the Obama Administration’s attack on religious liberty. Under a new Obamacare mandate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the White House is mandating that virtually all religious employers, with the exception of churches, provide health care coverage for contraception — including abortion-inducing drugs — thereby trampling upon their constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion. And it is this mandate that has caused a vehement response in churches and synagogues across the country.
Yesterday, the head of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, warned that the nation’s 70 million Catholics are ready to go to war with the Administration’s dictates, saying “Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church. This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets.”
Donohue’s remarks follow those of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and at least 153 Catholic bishops across the country who have weighed in with opposition to the mandate. “We Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so,” wrote Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette, Michigan. Those penalties include fines imposed by the federal government that could cost larger organizations millions of dollars per year.
The Catholic Church is not alone in its opposition to Obamacare’s onslaught against religious freedom. David Addington, The Heritage Foundation’s vice president of Domestic and Economic Policy, details the growing ranks of the faithful who say the Obama Administration has crossed a very dangerous line. The National Association of Evangelicals commented that “The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent” and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America stated, “In declining to expand the religious exemption within the healthcare reform law, the Obama Administration has disappointingly failed to respect the needs of religious organizations such as hospitals, social welfare organizations and more.” The Agudath Israel of America stated its opposition, as did the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America.
The Obama Administration is beginning to feel the pressure. On Sunday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius authored an op-ed in USA Today defending the Obama Administration’s actions, claiming that a very narrow exemption to the mandate is evidence that the White House is “working to strike the right balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing women’s access to critical preventive health services.” That exemption, though, does not apply to institutions like religious schools and hospitals. Sebelius might claim the Administration is offering grace to people of faith, but in fact it is not. In an editorial that ran the same day as Sebelius,’ USA Today agreed with those standing on the side of religious liberty, writing that “in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform” the Obama Administration “galloped over” the line and violated the “simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs.”
The Obama Administration’s actions, though entirely counter to the freedom of religion, should not be surprising given the nature of the President’s health care law. Obamacare has given the federal government broad power over one-sixth of the American economy and thereby purports to grant Washington the power to force religious institutions to take actions contrary to their faith. Addington writes that this kind of concentration of power “has proved to be a drastic and dangerous experiment.” America’s religious leaders and the faithful have awoken to this wolf at their door and are lashing out in defense of their freedoms. Congress, too, should act now by repealing Obamacare and restoring the religious liberty that is so central to our way of life.
-
Author: Obama’s Contraception Mandate Like Pre-Holocaust Germany (vid)
Breitbart ^ | 2/7/12 | msnbc
Posted on February 7, 2012 9:26:00 PM EST by Nachum
On MSNBC’s Jansing and Co. author Eric Metaxas compared the Obama's administration's encroachment on religious freedoms to Nazi Germany.
“I met the president. I gave him a copy of my book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which he said he’s going to read,” Metaxas said during the interview. “In that book, you read about what happened to an amazingly great country called Germany…”
“In the beginning, it always starts really, really small. We need to understand as Americans — if we do not see this as a bright line in the sand — if you’re not a Catholic, if you use contraception — doesn’t matter. Because eventually, this kind of government overreach will affect you.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.tv ...
-
Oh my: White House having second thoughts on new contraception rule? (Keep up the pressure!!)
Hotair ^ | 02/07/2012 | AllahPundit
Posted on February 7, 2012 11:35:41 PM EST by SeekAndFind
How dangerous is this for them? Dangerous enough that even Chris Matthews, who was last seen praising Obama’s beatific smile as worth 10 points in the booth this November, is talking about how “frightening” it is that the state might start dictating to churches in matters of conscience. If they’ve got Tingles saying stuff like that, imagine what undecided religious voters are thinking.
A key White House adviser on faith issues said Tuesday that several organizations with ties to the administration have approached President Obama’s aides about finding a resolution to fast-growing controversy over a new rule requiring many Catholic institutions to offer birth control and other contraception services as part of employees’ health care coverage.
“There are conversations right now to arrange a meeting to talk with folks about how this policy can be nuanced,” said Pastor Joel C. Hunter, a Florida megachurch pastor who has grown personally close to Obama and advised his White House on religious issues. “This is so fixable, and we just want to get into the conversation.”…
One possible compromise was introduced as early as last October, long before the issue hit the national headlines, when one of Obama’s outside advisers drafted a plan that would have allowed women working for Catholic institutions to receive coverage directly from insurers rather than from the objecting institutions themselves.
Carney said this afternoon that they “will be working with those organizations and individuals who have concerns” on implementing the new policy before it goes into effect next year, but Axelrod was a bit stronger this morning in the MSNBC clip you’ll find below. Quote: “We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventive care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions.” As with Komen and Planned Parenthood, I’m surprised the White House is as surprised as it seems to be about the backlash it’s getting. The thinking, I assume, was that they could get away with it because, as Ed notes in his new column, Catholics just aren’t that socially conservative. Fifty-four percent of them voted for The One in 2008; meanwhile, in today’s new PRRI poll on the contraception issue, 58 percent of Catholics thought all employers should cover birth control in their health plans at no cost and 52 percent thought that policy should extend to religiously-affiliated employers. (Among Catholic voters specifically, though, the split was 45/52.) If there was nothing else happening to keep the issue cooking, it might have faded before election day. I think Team O might have been caught off-guard by the intensity and uniformity of the pushback from Catholic bishops, though, especially since they’re used to getting cover from many of them on other Democratic agenda items like immigration. And of course, Romney went after this issue hard and will probably be pressed by Santorum into going after it harder still. That’s a risky simultaneous surge of political demand and supply for the White House, so here comes the climbdown.
Exit question from Ace’s co-blogger Laura W: Why did Catholic organizations support ObamaCare in the first place when they knew there was a risk that it would force conflicts of conscience like this one? Did they think it didn’t matter how other groups were burdened so long as they themselves got a pass?
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
this might be thigbamas Waterloo.
-
Catholic Outcry Over Obama Administration's Birth Control Decision Could Factor In Presidential Race
FoxNews ^ | February 06, 2012 | James Rosen
Posted on February 7, 2012 1:18:11 AM EST by Steelfish
Catholic Outcry Over Obama Administration's Birth Control Decision Could Be Factor In Presidential Race By James Rosen Published February 06, 2012
Catholic pulpits and pews are increasingly inflamed with talk of a war on religion after the Obama administration's recent decision on employers' birth control coverage.
“There can be no doubt that religious liberty in our country is in jeopardy,” Monsignor W. Ronald Jameson warned on Saturday from inside Washington’s historic Cathedral of St. Matthew. “This is the time to speak up. This is the time for all voices to be heard.”
Jameson’s dire warning to the Catholic faithful was focused on the controversial ruling that President Obama made last week, mandating that all employers, as part of the 2010 health care overhaul, must cover in full the cost of female contraception. The Roman Catholic Church, as a matter of doctrine, opposes the use of birth control. In an op-ed published Monday in USA Today, the president’s top health official, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, defended the ruling as striking the right balance between respecting religious freedom and providing critical health services to women.
“This is not an easy issue,” Sebelius wrote, adding that the Obama administration had taken pains to make allowances for the church. “We specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith. This exemption includes churches and other houses of worship, and could also include other church-affiliated organizations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Archbishop to U.S. Troops: Obamacare Reg ‘Is a Blow to a Freedom...for Which You Have Seen Your Buddies Fall in Battle’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/archbishop-us-troops-obamacare-reg-blow-freedomfor-which-you-have-seen-your-buddies
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 6, 2012
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts
U.S. Army Capt. Carl Subler, a Catholic chaplain, celebrates Mass with soldiers from the 4th Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment at the helicopter loading zone at Forward Operating Base Wolverine, Zabul, Afghanistan, Dec. 12, 2009. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Christine Jones)
(CNSNews.com) - Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who leads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, wrote a letter to be read at all Sunday Masses for U.S. military personnel around the world that said that a regulation issued by the Obama Administration under the new federal health care law was “a blow” to a freedom that U.S. troops have not only fought to defend but for which some have recently died in battle.
“It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle,” the archbishop wrote.
Another line in his letter said: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
The message from the archbishop touched off a controversy both in and outside the military when the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains told the service's senior chaplains that Catholic priests serving as Army chaplains should be told not to read the archbishop's letter from the pulpit.
The Archdiocese for the Military Services has described that move as a violation of the archbishop's First Amendment rights as well as the First Amendment rights of the Catholic chaplains involved and their congregations.
The regulation the archbishop spoke about was finalized by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Jan. 20. It mandates that all health-care plans in the United States cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions. A “religious” employer exemption included in the regulation only applies to organizations that primarily focus on inculcating the tenets of the church in question, primarily employ members of the church, primarily serve members of the church, and is organized under the section of the Internal Revenue Code used by actual parishes.
Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable institutions would not be exempt from the regulation, nor would Catholic individuals, business owners, or insurers.
Because the Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception, and abortion are morally wrong and that Catholics cannot be involved in them, and because the Obamacare law requires that all individual purchase health insurance and that larger employers provide health insurance to their workers or face a penalty, the regulation would force Catholics to act against the teachings of their faith and against their consciences.
Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services (Archdiocese for the Mililtary Services photo)
Archbishop Broglio’s letter opposing the regulation and describing it as a violation of the constitutional rights of Catholics was read verbatim at Masses served by Navy and Air Force chaplains around the world.
However, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains attempted to silence Catholic Army chaplains from reading it at their Masses—an effort rejected and resisted by Archbishop Broglio.
“On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels,” the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military said in a statement.
“The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution,” said the statement by the archdiocese.
“The Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop's letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit,” said the archdiocese’s statement. “The Chief's office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.”
On Saturday, Jan. 28, after the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains issued this directive, Archbishop Broglio spoke with Secretary of the Army John McHugh, a political appointee of President Barack Obama.
Archbishop Broglio’s position was that, in trying to stop Catholic Army chaplains from reading his pastoral letter, the Army was violating his First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion and the First Amendment rights of Catholic chaplains and Catholic service members.
“Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants,” said the statement from the archdiocese.
In his Jan. 28 telephone conversation with Army Secretary McHugh, Archbishop Broglio was able to extract from the secretary an admission that it had been wrong for the secretary to try to silence the Catholic chaplains. The archbishop decided that the line in his letter that said Catholics cannot and will not comply with the “unjust law” of the HHS regulation would not be read aloud in Catholic Masses by the chaplains, but that the rest of the letter would.
The line stating "we will not ... comply with this unjust law" did remain, however, in the printed letter that was distributed at Masses said by Army chaplains and it remains in the copies of the letter posted on the website of the Archdiocese for the Military.
Bishop Richard Spencer of the Archdiocese for the Military Services distributing Holy Communion in Iraq during Holy Week of 2011. (Archdiocese for the Military Services photo)
“Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop's letter,” said the statement by the archdiocese. “Additionally, the line: ‘We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law’ was removed [from the reading of the letter] by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.
“The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio's statement from the other branches of service,” said the archdiocese's statement.
Archbishop Broglio's letter minced no words in telling Catholics in the Armed Forces that the federal government was not only violating their constitutional rights through the new Obamacare regulation but was also violating the constitutional rights of all Catholics, while harming the freedom of religion generally.
“It is imperative that I call to your attention to an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith,” wrote the archbishop.
“The federal government, which claims to be ‘of, by, and for the people,’ has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people—the Catholic population—and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faith,” wrote the archbishop.
“It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle,” said Archbishop Broglio.
The archbishop made clear that the regulation seeks to force not only Catholic institutions but also individuals, employers and insurers to provide and/or purchase immoral services.
“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage the includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception,” said Archbishop Broglio. “Almost all health insurers will be forced to include these immoral ‘services’ in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.”
Archbishop Broglio declared that the Administration’s regulation was an “unjust law” and warned that Catholics would resist it.
“In so ruling,” he wrote, “the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.
“And, as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to choose between violating our consciences or dropping health care coverage for our employees (and suffering the penalties for doing so),” said the archbishop.
“We cannot—and will not—comply with this unjust law,” he wrote.
When she finalized the regulation last month, HHS Secretary Sebelius said she would give religious non-profit organizations—such as Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable institutions—until Aug. 1, 2013 to “adapt” to the new regulation and comply with it. For Catholic business owners, insurers and individuals the rule will take effect this Aug. 1.
In comments on the regulation submitted to HHS in September, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called it an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and urged the administration to completely rescind it. “The HHS mandate should be rescinded in its entirety,” the bishops said.
In November, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, personally made the Catholic Church’s case for rescinding the regulation to President Barack Obama.
Over the past week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has repeatedly defended the regulation, saying at one point that it did not raise any “constitutional issues.”
A spokesman for the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains told CNSNews.com that the office sent an email out to senior chaplains around the world a week ago Friday asking that Archbishop Broglio's letter not be read during Mass last Sunday but only be mentioned during Mass and then handed out afterwards.
A spokesman for the Army's Office of the Chief of Chaplains told CNSNews.com that the office sent an email out to senior chaplains around the world a week ago Friday asking that Archbishop Broglio's letter not be read during Mass last Sunday but only be mentioned during Mass and then handed out afterwards.
"The Army was concerned that the letter included language that could be misunderstood in a military environment," the spokesman said.
An Army spokesman told National Review Online on Friday that “the Army became aware of the Archbishop’s letter last Friday (Jan. 27) and was concerned that the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting. The Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass. The Army greatly appreciates the Archbishop’s consideration of the military’s perspective and is satisfied with the resolution upon which they agreed."
-
O'Brien says Archdiocese of Baltimore won't offer birth control coverage
The Baltimore Sun ^ | February 7, 2012 | Andrea K. Walker
Cardinal-designate Edwin F. O'Brien said in a strongly worded letter that the Archdiocese of Baltimore will not comply with federal law requiring churches to offer birth control coverage even it means dropping health insurance for its 3,500 employees.
"We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law," O'Brien wrote in the letter, which was read during last Sunday's Mass at the area's 153 Roman Catholic parishes.
O'Brien's letter highlights a continuing dispute over federal health care reform, and a policy that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says is designed to improve care for women.
The agency recently rejected a request by Catholic groups to be exempt from a requirement that insurance cover contraception and sterilization — areas that go against the church's teachings. The Obama administration has given the religious groups a year to comply with the law.
But O'Brien said in his letter that the yearlong reprieve was a weak concession.
"The Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our nation's first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty," O'Brien wrote.
The letter was O'Brien's strongest condemnation of the rule, which most employers have to comply with this year. It comes as Catholic groups are putting increased pressure on federal officials to reverse their opinion. The Baltimore Archdiocese was one of many around the country that issued letters to its members criticizing the rule and urging them to speak out against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.baltimoresun.co m ...
-
Over 150 congressional leaders demand repeal of HHS mandate
cna ^ | February 8, 2012 | Michelle Bauman
President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address on Jan. 25, 2011. Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson.
Washington D.C., Feb 8, 2012 / 09:04 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A letter from 154 bipartisan members of Congress is urging the Obama administration to reverse a contraception mandate that religious employers say would require them to violate their consciences.
The Feb. 6 letter to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, condemned the recent mandate as an “unprecedented overreach by the federal government.”
Congressional leaders urged Sebelius to “reconsider the final rule” as it applies to employers and individuals who have moral or religious objections to the coverage required by the mandate.
They also asked her for “specific details on the process followed in the reading and evaluating of the public comments submitted” about the mandate.
The letter comes amid a storm of criticism over Sebelius’ recent announcement that virtually all employers will soon be required to purchase health insurance plans that cover contraceptives – including abortion-inducing drugs – and sterilization.
In their letter, the congressmen noted that Sebelius’ department had received more than 200,000 comments on the rule during its public comment period. Many of these comments objected to the “narrow scope of the religious exemption” included in the mandate.
The religious exemption applies only to those organizations that exist to instill religious values and limit their employment and services to primarily members of their own faith. While most churches are covered by the exemption, huge numbers of religious schools, hospitals and charitable organizations are not.
However, despite the massive wave of criticism, Sebelius refused to broaden the exemption in issuing the final rule on Jan. 20.
In response, Rep. Steve Scalise (R - LA) led a Congressional effort to compose a letter voicing “strong opposition” to the mandate, which he described as “radical” and an “attack on the religious freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights.”
In their joint letter, congressional leaders observed that the mandate infringes upon the conscience rights not only of those who object to contraception, but also “of those who, for moral or religious reasons, oppose abortion.”
They explained that the regulation requires coverage of certain “drugs and devices that can function as abortifacients,” such as Plan B and Ella.
They also said that the one-year extension granted to religiously-affiliated organizations that object to the mandate “only delays the inevitable violation of conscience.”
The members of Congress asked Sebelius to consider the concerns that had been raised.
They requested that she “suspend the final rule” until an arrangement has been made to “ensure that both employers and individuals are afforded their constitutionally protected conscience rights.”
Ha ha ha Obama is digging himself a grave on this.
-
That is not the issue. If killing every black in the bronx and brooklyn, resulted in a crime rate drop of 100% would you be ok with that?
Point made. If you want the right to screw around, YOU pay for your own rubbers or pills...or YOU pay for the kid that gets conceived, because you can't wait to open your legs.
-
Point made. If you want the right to screw around, YOU pay for your own rubbers or pills...or YOU pay for the kid that gets conceived, because you can't wait to open your legs.
C'mon man, that would mean personal responsibility.... ;)
-
To me the issue is very simple and basic.
Should the govt have the power and authority to mandate businesses and individuals provide and/or purchase certain types of insurance/products without any choice or regard for religious or other regard?
The issue is not birth control here, the issue is much larger than that.
-
White House: Birth Control Mandate ‘Virtually Identical’ to Romney’s Massachusetts Policy
Cybercast News Service ^ | 2/8/12 | Fred Lucas
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney scoffed at Republican primary candidate Mitt Romney’s criticism of a new rule that will require all health insurance policies – except for people working directly in a church or seminary – to cover sterilization and FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions, saying that Romney backed a near-identical policy as governor of Massachusetts. The new policy, part of Obamacare and due to go into effect on Aug. 1, has been denounced by the U.S. Catholic of Conference Bishops (USCCB) as a violation of religious liberty that would force
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
-
Senate Democrats Say Obama ‘Reinforced’ His Stance on Contraception Mandate at Democratic Retreat
Email6Smaller FontTextLarger Text|Print
President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.
The retreat was closed to media.
Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.
Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.
“It is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes as we do, and the vast majority of the American women should have access to birth control,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said pointing out that 15 percent of women use birth control for medical issues. “It’s medicine, and women deserve their medicine.”
Democrats today called on Republicans to stop using women as a “political football,” and stop defining this debate, as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., did earlier in the day, as a religious issue.
“It’s time to tell Republicans ‘mind your own business,’” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. ”Ideology should never be used to block women from getting the care they need to lead healthier lives.
“The power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman – not her boss,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “What is more intrusive than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them?”
Sen. Patty Murray, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, was asked if she was concerned about some Democrats, such as Tim Kaine, the former DNC chairman and Virginia governor now running for a Virginia Senate seat, disagreeing with parts of the White House’s decision. Kaine supports the mandate but said yesterday that the White House made a “bad decision” in not allowing a broad enough religious employer exemption.
“I know that our candidates know their states and they know their own beliefs, and I back them in doing that,” Murray responded today.
-
Obama and the democrats are going to get destroyed over this tyranny.
-
The Long Road to Eroding Religious Freedom: When President Obama Bragged About It
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
February 8, 2012 6:20 P.M. Comments9
“Darn tooting.”
Back in October when the HHS contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandate issue was more under the radar than it is now (the announcement on January 20 was far from the first communication about it from the administration), President Obama bragged about it during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Chicago.
From the White House transcript:
And to make sure that those laws are upheld, we appointed two brilliant women to the Supreme Court. (Applause.) We repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell” so that every single American can serve their country, regardless of who they love. (Applause.) And, yes, we passed health care reform because no one in America should go bankrupt because somebody in their family gets sick. (Applause.)
Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage for no good reason. They won’t be able to deny your coverage because of preexisting conditions. Think about what that means for families all across America. Think about what it means for women.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Birth control –
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. You’re stealing my line. (Applause.) Breast cancer, cervical cancer are no longer preexisting conditions. No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Darn right!
THE PRESIDENT: Darn tooting. (Laughter.) They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs. And while it will take a couple of years for all the reforms to fully take place, already we’ve got seniors all across the country who have gotten $250 to help them pay for their prescription drug benefit. And nearly 1 million young adults already have health insurance because of it — 1 million more young people. That’s an incredible achievement. The Affordable Care Act is working. (Applause.)
That the president would mock the conscience rights of Americans — Catholic bishops were already educating churchgoers in bulletin inserts, urging them to oppose the coming mandate — is not all that out of character though. Back when we were arguing about the whole of Obamacare itself and abortion funding, the president of the United States actually accused Catholic bishops of lying about the language of the proposed legislation.
“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there’s some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness,” he told liberal religious activists during a conference call in the summer of 2009.
And, again, it is not just Catholic bishops or Catholic pewsitters this administration is hostile to.
-
Biden warned of birth control backlash
By: Jennifer Epstein
February 8, 2012 01:01 PM EST
Two top advisers to President Barack Obama — both Catholics — warned him of the potential for controversy over his decision to require religious organizations to cover contraceptives in their health insurance plans.
Vice President Joe Biden and former White House chief of staff Bill Daley both told the president that the decision would be cast as a government intrusion on religious freedom and that it could alienate Catholic voters in swing states, Bloomberg reported Wednesday. The decision has whipped up a frenzy of criticism for the president that he’s been battling since the move went public.
Biden, the first Catholic to serve as vice president, isn’t known for being reticent. But he hasn’t yet spoken publicly about the Jan. 20 decision. His office declined to comment.
The advice coming from Biden and Daley also represented a division among the president’s top advisers, with a group of top women all urging the president to not create an exemption for religious organizations. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, also a Catholic, led the charge, and was backed by several others, including senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and then-Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that some reports about who supported the president’s decision are “inaccurate,” but didn’t make clear whether he was referring to the report about Biden and Daley or others.
Since the Department of Health and Human Services announced that religious employers — including Catholic schools and hospitals, but not churches — would not be exempt from the health care law’s mandate for free access to contraceptives, attacks from religious groups and Republicans have steadily intensified.
The White House indicated Tuesday that it might agree to some modifications in the rule that would give employers flexibility.
Catholics made up more than a quarter of the 2008 electorate — and they picked Obama over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) 54 percent to 45 percent. Large numbers of voters in key battleground states Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are Catholic.
-
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/08/cardinal-designate-dolan-president-obama-needs-to-stop-intruding-into-internal-life-of-a-church
This thing is exploding. Fuck Obama and his evil cabal of communists and marxists.
-
Email Print 47Comments Share
February 7, 2012
Obama's Assault on the Poor
By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- Some issues fade; others fester. The Obama administration's contraceptive mandate on religious charities, hospitals and universities is the festering kind.
The initial reaction concerned the rights of institutions. Catholic organizations naturally resent being forced to buy health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and drugs that can end a pregnancy soon after conception. The Obama administration seems to have calculated that since contraceptives are popular and the Catholic Church is not, the outcry would be isolated.
But religious liberty is also popular, given the Constitution and all that. Even those who have no objection to contraception -- the category in which I have repeatedly placed myself -- can be offended when arrogant government officials compel religious institutions to violate the dictates of their conscience. Religious liberty that applies only to doctrines and practices of which we approve means nothing.
In this case, however, the main harm Barack Obama has done is not to institutions. It is to the people they serve.
The provision of social services in America, and by America abroad, is a partnership between government and religious groups, both of which have advantages. Religious charities are compassionate and trusted by communities. Government has greater reach and resources.
A humane partnership between the two has depended on an uneasy compromise. Religious groups must use public funds for public purposes, not for proselytization. Government, in turn, allows religious charities to maintain views and practices that are different from those of public institutions.
At first, Obama endorsed this consensus -- in his "Call to Renewal" speech in 2006 and his Zanesville, Ohio, speech in 2008. Now his administration is applying an ideological wrecking ball. It asserts that only churches merit serious religious liberty protection. The government's views and standards must prevail when religious groups serve nonmembers -- an apparently unlimited power to regulate religious institutions that don't distribute the bread and wine.
The health care mandate is not an aberration; it is a culmination. In the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case, the Obama administration opposed any special ministerial exception to federal law -- a radical argument unanimously repudiated by the court. The Department of Health and Human Services recently denied a grant to the Migrant and Refugee Services committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to assist women rescued from sex trafficking, ostensibly because the organization does not refer for abortions.
In a variety of international settings, I have seen religious groups, with support from the U.S. government, engaged in AIDS treatment, fistula repair, malaria control and the promotion of child and maternal health. Dr. Ram Cnaan of the University of Pennsylvania has documented the domestic role of "sacred places that serve civic purposes" -- homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs. Cnaan estimates the "replacement value" -- the cost to government agencies of assuming these roles -- to be about $140,000 each year for the typical community-serving religious institution.
Take the case of one city: Philadelphia. There are about 2,000 such faith-based institutions, many of them Catholic. Replacing them would require about a quarter of a billion dollars every year. Catholic Social Services helps more than 250,000 people a year in soup kitchens, shelters and centers for the disabled. Its Community-Based Services division runs adoption and foster-care programs, staffs senior community centers and supports immigration services. The Catholic Nutritional Development Services, working in partnership with public agencies, delivers nearly 10 million meals a year -- accounting for about half of all meals delivered to poor children in Philadelphia in the summer months when school is out.
Much of this good work -- and similar work across the country -- is now threatened. If federal policies make it impossible for religious nonprofits and hospitals to work in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies in providing social services, millions of poor and vulnerable Americans -- Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and nonreligious -- would suffer. The task of building alternatives would cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- and then lack the distinctive human touch provided by religious groups.
All because Obama seems determined to establish secularism as a state religion. There is, however, an easy solution to the problem: The president could respect the rights and views of those who disagree with him. The relevant portion of the Bill of Rights is easy to find, because it comes first.
Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
-
Deny Communion to Pelosi urge canon lawyer, popular priest-blogger
Life Site News ^ | February 8, 2012 | PATRICK B. CRAINE
Posted on February 8, 2012 4:23:31 PM EST by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 8, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – After pro-abortion House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi defied America’s bishops last week by proclaiming she would stand with her “fellow Catholics” in support of President Obama’s contraception mandate, one of the web’s most prominent priest-bloggers has issued an impassioned plea for her bishops to deny her Holy Communion in accord with canon law.
“For the good of souls, Nancy Pelosi must be denied Holy Communion and the Catholic people should be informed that she is being denied Holy Communion,” wrote Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (aka Fr. Z) on his blog Tuesday.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf is calling on Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco and Cardinal Donald Wuerl to invoke canon 915, which states that those who have been “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
Niederauer has said in the past that he was considering denying Pelosi Communion, but Wuerl has said such an act would turn the Eucharist into a “weapon.”
The priest got support Tuesday from leading canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters, who holds the Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and serves as a consultant to the Vatican’s highest court.
On his In the Light of the Law blog, Dr. Peters writes that Pelosi is perhaps the best case for applying canon 915 in the United States.
“If her prolonged public conduct does not qualify as obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin, then, in all sincerity, I must admit to not knowing what would constitute obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin,” he writes.
Last Wednesday, a CNSnews.com reporter asked Pelosi if she would stand with her fellow Catholics in resisting the contraception mandate, which would force Catholic institutions to offer coverage of contraception to employees.
In reply, Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, said, “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”
Catholics have been calling for Pelosi’s bishops to invoke canon 915 for many years, but her remarks last week were particularly poignant as at least 169 Catholic bishops across the country, representing over 90% of the country’s dioceses, have blasted the mandate, in many cases ensuring that letters were read to the faithful during Sunday Mass calling the mandate unconstitutional and unjust.
“Nancy Pelosi considers it consistent with what Catholics do to take a stand against the bishops in favor of a policy that would force Catholic institutions to violate the teachings of her Church,” wrote Fr. Zuhlsdorf, noting that she is one of the most visible public figures in America.
“Your Excellency? Your Eminence? How much longer does this have to go on? What else does she have to do?” he asked.
To concerns that such a strong action would launch a media firestorm, Fr. Zuhlsdorf replied, “Damn straight! Let there be national repercussions and a media firestorm.”
“Nancy Pelosi has publicly chosen sides against the Catholic Church’s teachings and against the bishops,” he said. “Let her choice be publicly confirmed by those same bishops.”
According to Dr. Peters, Pelosi’s comments suggest that her views “like Pharaoh’s heart, have only hardened with time.”
“Canon 915 … is not about impositions on individual conscience, it’s about public consequences for public behavior,” he said. “It’s about taking people at their word and acknowledging the character of their actions. It’s about not pretending that people don’t really mean what they repeatedly say and what they repeatedly do.”
“My view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion to bring home to her and to the wider faith community the gravity of her conduct and the need to avoid such conduct altogether or, that failing, at least to repent of it. Quickly,” he said.
“Nancy Pelosi obviously means exactly what she says, and she regularly backs up her words with deeds. She deserves to be taken seriously. Very seriously,” he added.
LifeSiteNews.com did not hear back from the Archdioceses of San Francisco or Washington by press time.
To contact Archbishop Niederauer:
info@sfarchdiocese.org
To contact Cardinal Wuerl:
chancery@adw.org
-
Wash Post Journalist: 'Maybe the Founders Were Wrong' to Guarantee Free Exercise of Religion
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/02/08/wash-post-journalist-maybe-founders-were-wrong-guarantee-free-exerci ^
Posted on February 8, 2012 8:44:57 PM EST by chessplayer
Washington Post political writer Melinda Henneberger shockingly stated, Wednesday, that "maybe the Founders were wrong" to guarantee religious liberty. Henneberger appeared on Hardball to discuss the Obama administration's decision to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control in health care.
Discussing the battle between the left and those who see it as a threat to the First Amendment, she declared, " Maybe the Founders were wrong to guarantee free exercise of religion in the First Amendment but that is what they did and I don't think we have to choose here. " Henneberger's awkward comment came as she attempted to defend the Catholic Church. [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211280758375336.html
This monster needs to be defeated in November. He is the spawn of Satan.
-
Affordable Health Care Act
Motive, means and opportunity: Obama’s assault on Catholics
- Doug Hagmann Wednesday, February 8, 2012
(0) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us
5
The current headlines that describe the Obama administration’s full frontal assault against our Judeo-Christian values and specifically, the Catholic church in America through mandatory birth control policies, reveal a much larger and more disturbing agenda that is being missed or deliberately omitted by the corporate media.
Investigation into what has been taking place behind the scenes exposes alarming facts that will affect everyone in America, regardless of their faith.
Despite the administration’s claims and the sound bites from lawmakers, the current battle is not about providing Americans with affordable health care and never was. By following the money trail and influence behind the actions of this administration, it is clear that the current rift is a byproduct of final stages of implementing Marxist-Leninist socialism in America.
Motive: the Socialist agenda
Since his first day in office, Obama has been leading the U.S. on a direct path to socialism. He has nationalized portions of the banking industry, taken over parts of the automobile industry, and is now engaged in socializing our health care industry, which encompasses about twenty percent of our national economy. Replacing capitalism with socialism requires control over that segment of our national economy.
Obama and the globalist powers behind him know history. They understand that the most formidable obstacle to socialism in the former USSR was religion and the church. True socialism cannot coexist with Judeo-Christian principles, as socialism denies the fundamental tenet of religious faith that God created man and man needs God.
Means: Divide and conquer
To neutralize and then eliminate the obstacle of the church, Obama and his agents are using the divide and conquer strategy. Within the last decade, there has been a skillfully orchestrated approach to dividing the Catholic church through the formation and funding “Catholic” organizations that adhere and promote the socialist agenda. Two of the larger organizations, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, both promote “social justice” and the tenets of socialism.
Research has documented that both organizations have received funding, in part, by George Soros through his Open Society Institute (OSI). Throughout the last decade, it was discovered that Soros’ OSI group gave Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good $150,000 (2005 and 2006). Investigation found that John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress (CAP) which is funded in part by George Soros and tightly connected to both Obama and the Clintons, serves on their advisory council among other progressive activists. A review of 501(c)3 documents also shows a financial connection between Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.
By promoting the progressive agendas of these and similar organizations, Obama is successfully creating a division within the Catholic church in an attempt to cause chaos from within. Unless exposed, it just might work.
Opportunity: the Affordable Health Care Act
The last remaining obstacle in the U.S. to implementing a full socialist agenda in the U.S. is the church. In Obama’s world and those who are behind him this “obstacle” must be removed for his agenda to be successful. They were readily provided the vehicle to accomplish this in full view of every American through the Affordable Care Act.
Doug Hagmann
Most recent columns
Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com
Older articles by Doug Hagmann
-
HAHAHA you are insane, you are responding to yourself and posting article after article, you have OCD want some help?
-
HAHAHA you are insane, you are responding to yourself and posting article after article, you have OCD want some help?
Quiet!! The voices in his head are talking to him.
-
::). How original of both of y obamabots. ou
-
Are you still blaming this retarded spelling on your Auto Correct being ON?
-
Are you still blaming this retarded spelling on your Auto Correct being ON?
You leftists who call yourself "pro choice" are such a joke. you are only for the choice of an abortion, and nothing else.
-
February 9, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Unconscionable
By The Editors
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290603/unconscionable-editors
HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius
The Obama administration is now telling liberals that it is not backing down on its new health-care mandate, even as it coos of compromise to religious groups appalled by it. These messages may seem to be contradictory, but actually the administration has been quite consistent: Nothing it has ever said on this issue has been trustworthy.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has been the leading misleader. The administration, recall, has decided that almost all employers must cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients in their employees’ insurance plans — even if those employers are religious universities, hospitals, and charities that reject those practices.
AdvertisementSo she has tried to make the mandate seem more moderate than it is. In USA Today, she writes that “in the rule we put forward, we specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith.” Taken at face value, this statement would seem to imply that Notre Dame could escape the mandate if it fired its non-Catholic employees. That policy would be outrageous: What gives the federal government the legitimate authority to tell a religious institution how it should structure its mission? But in fact the administration would make the university jump through several more hoops. It would also have to expel its non-Catholic students. And even these changes would not be enough, since the university would continue to do much more than attempt to inculcate religious beliefs in its students — which is another test the administration requires for the exemption to apply.
Sebelius says that three states have religious exemptions as narrow as the one the federal government has adopted. The notion that the federal government is imposing the model of three very liberal states — New York, Oregon, and Vermont — on the entire country is not comforting. But even in those states, some employers have been able to sidestep the mandates by, for example, organizing their insurance under federal regulation, which until now has not overridden conscience. The new mandate eliminates that escape route.
Joel Hunter, one of Obama’s pet pastors, says “this policy can be nuanced.” (“I have come to bring nuance,” as Matthew 10:34 does not say.) He is wrong. Either the administration will back off, and allow religious organizations to follow their consciences, or it will not. If it chooses the former course, it may still find a way to increase access to contraception — which is not especially scarce, by the way — but it will have to replace its current policy, not just “nuance” it.
Two bills in Congress would reverse the administration’s policy. Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.) and Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R., Neb.) have legislation to protect conscience rights generally. A bill from Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) would allow religious groups to refrain from providing sterilization and contraception. Both bills are praiseworthy, but both have drawbacks. The former, broader bill might allow liberals to conjure up hypothetical scenarios — what if a pharmacist decided he had a moral objection to painkillers? — rather than address the administration’s hostility to religious freedom.
The narrower bill, on the other hand, would leave conscience rights weaker than they were at the start of the Obama administration. Before Obamacare, a businessman had no obligation under federal law to provide health insurance covering anything he considered immoral. Whether his objection was moral or religious did not matter, and nor did whether his organization met criteria an administration in Washington, D.C., had established. Leaving these matters to individual consciences and free labor markets has worked fine, and not seriously impeded anyone’s access to needed medical services. Any “compromise” the administration offers should be measured against this standard: the standard of the pre-Obama American tradition of religious freedom, a tradition that has constitutional protection even if it lacks the administration’s sympathy.
editor’s note: This article has been amended since its initial publication.
-
Are you still blaming this retarded spelling on your Auto Correct being ON?
???
-
You leftists who call yourself "pro choice" are such a joke. you are only for the choice of an abortion, and nothing else.
you can have the choice to an abortion or not to have an abortion,that's a choice
-
you can have the choice to an abortion or not to have an abortion,that's a choice
Should the church have the choice as to what insurance it wants to offer?
-
Should the church have the choice as to what insurance it wants to offer?
NO, the church is not a dictatorship if even one woman in the church wants birth control they should offer it, what are you a fascist? You seriously feel comfortable allowing church officials to dictate health policy and dictate a proven life saver in cases from it's staff because of a belief? If they want certain things they should offer there own health care, they are billionaires, why the fuck should we pay for it, you fucking commie.
-
NO, the church is not a dictatorship if even one woman in the church wants birth control they should offer it, what are you a fascist? You seriously feel comfortable allowing church officials to dictate health policy and dictate a proven life saver in cases from it's staff because of a belief? If they want certain things they should offer there own health care, they are billionaires, why the fuck should we pay for it, you fucking commie.
Yes, absolutely! Those not happy with what is being offered can work elsewhere or pay for it themselves.
-
Yes, absolutely! Those not happy with what is being offered can work elsewhere or pay for it themselves.
K i agree, so does Obama, perhaps he went about it in a shitty way but he did the right thing, you see you have to play dirty to win. I realize that now, the GOP have been doing it, now obama is, well he has been.
It needs to stop on both sides. The church should fuck right off, government is too big they need to get these leaches off there backs, including the welfare recipients. However, they need to pay for education for these welfare folks to make sure they can contribute, just handing people money will only make them lazier.
-
Some Democrats break from Obama on new contraception policy, as GOP vows to reverse it
Published February 08, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Some members of President Obama's own party are voicing opposition to his administration's controversial rule that religious schools and hospitals must provide contraceptive coverage for their employees.
As Democratic women lawmakers put up a united front in defending the administration, other Democrats are split over the new birth control policy, which has been condemned by Republicans as an "unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country."
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who faces re-election in November, sent a letter to Obama complaining that the mandate is a "direct affront to religious freedoms."
Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., said in January that the decision "violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights in federal law."
Tim Kaine, a Catholic seeking the Senate seat in Virginia, said he supports contraceptive coverage but thinks there should be a broader exemption for religious organizations.
Others have voiced strong support for the policy.
"Women's health care should not depend on who the boss is," said Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky.
The White House pushed back in the face of the political firestorm, arguing that Obama was sensitive to the objections and looking for a way to allay the concerns. Sen Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said Obama discussed the issue during a closed-door retreat Wednesday with Senate Democrats.
"He affirmed his view," Lautenberg said. "He's sticking by what he said, and he said we should be very careful to explain that an exception was made for those that have the religious objections ... Otherwise, (contraception) is going to have to be supplied."
The fight over the administration mandate escalated as House Speaker John Boehner accused the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country's most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals. He demanded that Obama rescind the policy or else Congress will.
"This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand," Boehner, a Catholic and Ohio Republican, said in a floor speech rare for the speaker.
The contentious issue has roiled the presidential race and angered religious groups, especially Catholics, who say the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.
It also has pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that has been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama's health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans' conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.
Clearly sensing a political opening, Republicans ramped up the criticism. Shortly after Boehner spoke, GOP senators gathered on the other side of the Capitol to hammer the administration and insist that they will push ahead with legislation to undo the requirement.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., called the new rule "an unprecedented affront to religious liberty. This is not a women's rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue."
The issue is not contraception, said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., but "whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be done. It's that simple. And if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all kinds of other absurd results."
Several Senate Democrats said they would challenge any effort to reverse the policy.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pointed out that for about 15 percent of women, birth control pills are used to treat endometriosis and other conditions.
"It's medicine and women deserve their medicine," she said.
The White House, facing a public and political outcry, engaged in damage control, circulating letters and statements from outside groups defending its position.
Administration officials had signaled on Tuesday that a compromise was possible and made clear Wednesday it was still looking for a way to deal with the issue.
"The president is committed, as I've tried to make clear, to ensuring that this policy is implemented so that all American women have access to the same level of health care coverage and doing that in a way that hopefully allays some of the concerns that have been expressed," said White House spokesman Jay Carney, who added, "We're focused on trying to get the policy implementation done in the right way."
Options could include granting leeway for a church-affiliated employer not to cover birth control, provided it referred employees to an insurer who would provide the coverage.
Another idea, previously rejected by the administration, calls for broadening the definition of a religious employer that would be exempt from the mandate beyond houses of worship and institutions whose primary purpose is to spread the faith. That broader approach would track a definition currently used by the IRS, bringing in schools, hospitals and social service agencies that deal with the general public.
A group of House Democratic women sought to frame the issue in economic and health terms, arguing that birth control reduces health costs and stops unintended pregnancies.
In a conference call, Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., who said she spoke as a nurse, mother and grandmother, pointed out that 28 states have similar rules on coverage for birth control. Schakowsky pointed out that the rule affects nurses, secretaries and janitorial staff who may not be Catholic.
Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., said the church "can't impose its religious views on people and whether they can have health care."
Fox News' Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Print Close
URL
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/08/some-democrats-break-from-obama-on-new-contraception-policy-as-gop-vows-to/
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/08/some-democrats-break-from-obama-on-new-contraception-policy-as-gop-vows-to/print#ixzz1luKcdd9a
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/9/rubio-blasts-obama-over-contraceptive-mandate
Obama is going to be forced to cave on this. once the presits in the hispanic churches tell them what evil thugbama is shoving down their throats, they will not vote for him.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/9/rubio-blasts-obama-over-contraceptive-mandate
Obama is going to be forced to cave on this. once the presits in the hispanic churches tell them what evil thugbama is shoving down their throats, they will not vote for him.
so are you for the right thing or just into politics. Obama isn't playing politics with them like all others he is telling them exactly what i have outlined. He is not attacking religious freedom at all, he just wont support barbaric practices based on silly superstitions because they deserve special rights. He is saying fuck off, get in line and do what ever other tax paying american has to do.
They are rich, child raping, fugitive safe haven bullshitters. I don't support denying any medical options unless logic dictates otherwise, im sorry i wont pay for a program that risks others lives because these morons believe in talking snakes and noah's ark. They don't support birth control, i get it, they are wrong and the world is moving past their outdated and dangerous views. They support the status quo, they blow dicks and should judge lest you be judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, apparently these hypocrites think they are the final judgement, birth control? saves lives? saves kids from suffering mental illness, mother from rape induce pregnancy etc etc.. to say this can't be on the table is idiotic and downright dangerous, how about fuck them and let others in the church choose what they want for themselves.
fuck man, you guys all speak about freedom but apparently you support socialism for select groups, the rich, the powerful and the church, anything else?
logic is against them, people are against them, they are tax exempt billionaires in teh vatican, why does obama have to apologize again? for not caving in to fucking stupidity. If he caves he has no back bone and should be beaten with a stick.
he has shown he will compromise to the point of giving in, i understand he is dealing with psychos like newt for example but he has to be more assertive.
i support alot of what he has done, but he has failed due to lack of backbone, if he caves again he has shown me that he can be manipulated. Not a quality i would suspect a leader to have.
obama is right here.
-
LOL. More garbage. Its not about the church! ! ! ! Its about the govt mandating what employers have to provide employees.
Employers should have the right and freedom to offer what ever the fuck they want or dont want!
-
Rick Warren vs. HHS Mandate: ‘rather go to jail than cave’
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290654/rick-warren-vs-hhs-mandate-rather-go-jail-cave-kathryn-jean-lopez
February 9, 2012 11:48 A.M. Comments
Rick Warren tweets:
I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure
and
I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29
Warren delivered the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration.
-
Obama, Contraception, and Freedom of Association: Constitutional Guys Finish Last | Print |
Written by Selwyn Duke
Thursday, 09 February 2012 09:45
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2844393/posts
It’s ironic that it is Barack Obama now ramming a contraception policy down Catholics’ and other Americans’ throats. Little more than a month ago, former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos spent 10 minutes in a Republican debate grilling presidential contenders Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney on, of all things, contraception.
What inspired the bizarre questions? First, Santorum is a practicing Catholic who doesn’t believe in the use of artificial birth control. Second, responding to a query from ABC’s Jake Tapper about a week prior to the debate, Santorum reiterated a constitutional fact: States have a right to ban contraception should they so choose.
To place the matter in further perspective for Tapper, Santorum gave the example of the Texas sodomy law overturned by the Supreme Court. Santorum said that he personally wouldn’t support the law, but nonetheless, states have a right to pass such legislation. He then criticized the judicial activism that overturns these laws and pointed out that, if the people find such a law unjust, the proper way to seek redress is through their state legislatures. This, my friends, is Constitutionalism 101.
For having the temerity to grasp and explain the supreme law of our land, Santorum was portrayed as the second coming of Tomás de Torquemada. Ms. Magazine ran with the deceptive headline “Santorum…Touts Anti-Contraceptive Position.” OutsidetheBeltway.com went one better, telling an outright lie with its headline, “Rick Santorum Favors Making Birth Control Illegal.” Meanwhile, the drama queens at Salon penned the header “Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control.” Ooh, that’s right, ladies! If Santorum becomes President, you’ll be having babies every time you sneeze! As for Tapper at ABC, he (or his editors) ran with “Santorum…Still Supports State Right to Outlaw Contraception.” Uh, well, yes. There’s a good reason for that.
The Constitution hasn’t changed since the last time he supported the state right to outlaw contraception.
Or did the nation pass another amendment and I missed it?
Let’s be clear: Our Constitution clearly dictates that states have a wide array of powers. In fact, if a state wants to outlaw apples, it may do so. And guess what?
I support a state’s right to outlaw apples.
Now people can say that Selwyn Duke touts an anti-apple position, favors making apples illegal, and is coming for your apples. My, just how will you keep the doctor away?
Meanwhile, in Gotham City (on the Potomac), we know what the big news is. Obama and his minions actually have used the force of law in the area of contraception. As part of their ObamaCare Death Star mandates they’re forcing all employers — even religious ones, such as Catholic hospitals — to offer birth-control through their worker health-insurance coverage. Not only that, this includes drugs such as the “morning-after” pill, which can induce abortion and destroy innocent human life. And the kicker is that Obama is doing this on the federal level, in clear violation of the Constitution.
Do you see the irony? As a devout Catholic, Rick Santorum doesn’t believe in using birth control; he also knows that he must attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. Yet he never implied that he would outlaw contraception any more than he would attempt to make Mass attendance compulsory. And every sane person knows this. Yet, because he personally adheres to the morality of his Catholic faith, and because he knows that we all should adhere to the legality of the Constitution, he’s the bad guy. Moreover, the media, playing this for all it’s worth, actually makes a federal (or is it state?) case out of this in a major Republican debate, as if there is a real possibility of having an Anti-Contraception Act of 2013.
So here’s what we’re to believe: Saying that states have a right to outlaw contraception is some kind of constitutional error, but to mandate contraception federally is securing a right. Santorum merely mentions that states could enforce a contraception law at the end of a gun, and he’s a threat; Obama actually does enforce one at the end of a gun, and he’s a savior. Okay, got it.
Speaking of constitutional confusion, has anyone noticed what has gotten lost in this debate? Everyone is talking about freedom of religion, but what about freedom of association? Huh? What’s that, you say? “What are you, Duke, Ron Paul or somethin’?” Well, let’s talk about it.
No one would dispute that I have the right to associate, or not to do so, with whomever I please; this includes the right to include certain people in, or exclude them from, my home on any basis I choose. This might mean excluding punk rockers, churchgoers, tennis players, used-car salesmen or some other group.
Such as contraceptive users.
Now, why should I lose this right because I decide to offer medical services on my property for payment? It is still my castle, paid for with my money and created by the sweat of my own brow.
Even more to the point here, would you support a law forcing parents to buy their sons and daughters contraception? If not, you certainly wouldn’t want the government to force people to buy it for strangers. But then, why should anyone lose that right to not be subject to such coercion simply because he decides to offer those aforementioned medical services?
I know, the Supreme Court way back when decided to label businesses “public accommodations” and ruled that such places couldn’t discriminate. But this is a judicial-activist rationalization. A court ruling doesn’t change morality; it doesn’t change the Constitution. And if you have built a business with your own money and effort, you have the moral right to freedom of association and to establish terms of employment. To rob us of these rights legally is nothing less than tyranny.
Yet we haven’t heard anyone talk about this in relation to ObamaCare. Why not? Because Uncle Sam’s trampling of freedom of association is now so much the status quo that we’ve become inured to it. We’ve so blurred the lines between public and private property that people don’t even question treating the latter as public accommodations.
Of course, if any politician dared espouse freedom of association with all its implications, he’d get the Santorum treatment. This is why we have no one to blame but ourselves when statesmen refuse to uphold constitutionalism. At election time, constitutional guys finish last.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211280758375336.html
This monster needs to be defeated in November. He is the spawn of Satan.
That he is.
-
LOL. More garbage. Its not about the church! ! ! ! Its about the govt mandating what employers have to provide employees.
Employers should have the right and freedom to offer what ever the fuck they want or dont want!
wait who is providing the healthcare again? are the employers paying for it like other businesses? or is it off our tax money, if it is they can fuck off, the gov has the right to tell them what the fuck to accept, its your money tit head.
are they paying for it?
-
wait who is providing the healthcare again? are the employers paying for it like other businesses? or is it off our tax money, if it is they can fuck off, the gov has the right to tell them what the fuck to accept, its your money tit head.
are they paying for it?
This applies to everyone! Again - who the fuck is Obama or Sebellius to tell me what i should be forced to offer an employee as a benefit? Are you not for choice? Or is the choice only to have an abortion or not? Me? I am pro choice - give me the choice as an employer what to offer and cover. Give me the choice what level of insurance i want to offer, give the employee the choice to accept or decline the coverage or benefit package at the place of employment.
Do you realize that this is type of bullshit that causes health care costs to rise and employers to be more hesitant to hire people?
________________________ ________________________ ______
The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandate
Wall Street Journal ^ | FEBRUARY 9, 2012 | JOHN H. COCHRANE
Critics are missing the main point...
When the administration affirmed last month that church-affiliated employers must buy health insurance that covers birth control, the outcry was instant. Critics complained that certain institutions should be exempt as a matter of religious freedom. Although the ruling was meant to be final, presidential advisers said this week that the administration might look for a compromise.
Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for "insurance" that covers contraceptives?
I put "insurance" in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill.
Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn't add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn't charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You'd have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you'd end up spending more...
The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed act, and they resign themselves to chipping away at its edges. No, we should throw it out, and fix the terrible distortions in the health-insurance and health-care markets.
Sure, churches should be exempt. We should all be exempt.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
-
ObamaCare’s Coercive Essence
Posted by Roger Pilon
Today POLITICO Arena asks:
Will the GOP win the birth-control fight?
My response:
The GOP will win the current contraceptive-abortifacient battle going away, because the average American understands the essence of religious freedom: government cannot force people to do things that violate their religious beliefs. The administration may try to frame this as a defense of women’s rights, but that’s pure sophistry. As I wrote yesterday, if the administration’s decision is reversed, women will still be perfectly free to use contraceptives, to seek abortions, and to do whatever else their beliefs permit. They just won’t be able to force others who object to such practices to pay for them.
There’s a bigger issue here, however. This is just the latest example of the perils of ObamaCare. When health care is thus “collectivized,” when we’re “all in this together,” we’re forced to fight for every “carve-out” of liberty. Those progressive Catholics who supported ObamaCare, who are now appalled by this move, should have thought of that before they worked to throw us all in the common pot. This incident is simply an early example of the many battles to come if ObamaCare survives the litigation and the elections ahead.
-
This applies to everyone! Again - who the fuck is Obama or Sebellius to tell me what i should be forced to offer an employee as a benefit? Are you not for choice? Or is the choice only to have an abortion or not? Me? I am pro choice - give me the choice as an employer what to offer and cover. Give me the choice what level of insurance i want to offer, give the employee the choice to accept or decline the coverage or benefit package at the place of employment.
Do you realize that this is type of bullshit that causes health care costs to rise and employers to be more hesitant to hire people?
________________________ ________________________ ______
The Real Trouble With the Birth-Control Mandate
Wall Street Journal ^ | FEBRUARY 9, 2012 | JOHN H. COCHRANE
Critics are missing the main point...
When the administration affirmed last month that church-affiliated employers must buy health insurance that covers birth control, the outcry was instant. Critics complained that certain institutions should be exempt as a matter of religious freedom. Although the ruling was meant to be final, presidential advisers said this week that the administration might look for a compromise.
Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for "insurance" that covers contraceptives?
I put "insurance" in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill.
Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn't add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn't charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You'd have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you'd end up spending more...
The critics fell for a trap. By focusing on an exemption for church-related institutions, critics effectively admit that it is right for the rest of us to be subjected to this sort of mandate. They accept the horribly misnamed act, and they resign themselves to chipping away at its edges. No, we should throw it out, and fix the terrible distortions in the health-insurance and health-care markets.
Sure, churches should be exempt. We should all be exempt.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
wait are you seriously this big of a troll? the government are the employers in this case stupid, you are actually fighting against what your saying you are so stupid. You see in a normal business the owner would provide the healthcare via his money, profit sharing whatever. In this case you have the church a tax exempt fuck hole trying to use tax dollars to have healthcare.
OK now ill slow down..
BOSS IS MAN WHO PAYS.
AT MY BUSINESS I BOSS, I PAY FOR HEALTHCOVERAGE, MY EMPLOYEE MAY GET THIS BENEFIT, BENEFIT, BENEFIT IF THEY WORK FOR ME AND ACCEPT MY POLICY,POLICY,POLICY.
ok you still with me son? good...
example two
BOSS IS PERSON WHO PAYS.
CHURCH DO NOT PAY, NO ONE, BOSS OF CHURCH SAY TO HIS PEOPLE THIS HEALTH PLAN. GOVERNMENT PAY SO THEY SAY WE BOSS WE GIVE YOU THIS HEALTHPLAN, STFU...
you see buddy? this article is retarded, it makes no sense at all. Im not joking its that bad. I read it and cringe at this guys logic and clear manipulation of semantics to distract. You eat it up like a fucking muffin top.
watch
"Critics are missing the larger point. Why should the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decree that any of us must pay for "insurance" that covers contraceptives?
I put "insurance" in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill. "
oh really huh, we are missing that a tax exempt non profit org wants to use tax payer money it has not contributed to for twice the benefit to pay for a plan to keep them healthy. WHATS THAT U SAY? you also refuse to use other peoples money to pay for a service that is free and benefits you because contraceptives are involved? how about go fuck yourself. You pay for it and you can remove contraceptives if you like. Why are you treating these people like they deserve all this special treatment? thought you were for fairness huh?
you are asking me to believe that i should pay for this healthcare for these people who pay no taxes and that they should dictate what and how much they get? thats fucking communism you twunt, you are a communist. SPELL it out son, you commie bastards. You fucking welfare queens, michelle bachmann loves her farm subsidies doesn't she that rich bitch, poor people have t.v's though, so its alright.
you are a fucking welfare recipient i bet, you are not a lawyer, you are too stupid and too illogical to be in that profession. If you are you are a defense attorney and lie constantly because thats all you do on here.
-
MELTDOWN! ! ! !
BTW - the issue would be no different than the govt forcing jews to pray on Sunday, muslims to serve pork in their resturants as a public accomodation, ,etc.
BTW - WHY THE FUCK IS GOVT MANDATING ANYTHING AT ALL!
I don't want to pay for others' abortions and rubbers! Let them pay for it themselves!
-
February 9, 2012
Obama Has Picked the Wrong Fight
By Cathy Young
The firestorm over the Obama Administration requiring religiously affiliated institutions to provide employees with health benefits that cover birth control rages on, as Catholic leaders mobilize the faithful and pundits warn that this may cost Obama the Catholic vote. The battle has been framed as one of religious freedom versus reproductive rights. But it also illustrates two troubling phenomena unrelated to religion: intrusive micromanagement of insurance options under the new federal health care law, and the redefinition of contraception as a public good rather than a personal choice.
The stated purpose of health care reform was to address the problem of uninsured patients who either face bankruptcy due to exorbitant bills, or rely on the free emergency care hospitals must provide. But the Affordable Health Care Act does far more than require Americans to be insured for catastrophic illness and other major medical expenses. To be approved under the ACA, an insurance policy must include extensive coverage for routine care.
In a sense, medical insurance is meant to mitigate life's unfair and arbitrary tragedies: some people are plagued by chronic illness or struck by a devastating health crisis, and need costly care to prevent death or disability. Fertility, however, is a normal part of life and a healthy function of the human body. Contraception is arguably an essential personal need for many, especially women; to call it an essential medical need is a stretch, except where pregnancy would pose a grave health risk.
It is also not, for the vast majority, a financial burden. Defending the administration's decision to mandate birth control coverage with no copay or deductibles, Planned Parenthood official Kim Custer writes that without this benefit, "millions of women would pay $15 to $50 a month, making it a vital, but often cost-prohibitive expense for many women." Really? For low-income women, yes; but the poor can already get free contraceptives at any Planned Parenthood clinic. (Of course, plenty of women -- at least those who are married or in steady relationships -- also share birth control costs with their partners.)
As proof that the measure is needed, an article on the Center for American Progress website cites a 2009 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Eight percent of reproductive-age, sexually active women said they sometimes did not use birth control to save money; 18 percent of those taking the Pill reported "inconsistent use" for the same reason. (The last figure appears to be somewhat inflated: the definition of "inconsistent use" included "buying fewer pill packs at one time" -- which would not diminish the Pill's effectiveness.)
But several caveats are in order. First of all, an accurate summary of the study would have specified "women with household income under $75,000 a year," to whom the survey pool was limited -- excluding nearly a third of Americans. Obviously, birth control costs are not a concern for the affluent; but when the figures are reported as if they applied to the entire population, it gives the impression that the problem at lower income levels is more pervasive than it really is.
Secondly, many of the women who reported skimping on birth control were unemployed, which means that the problem would not be solved by requiring employer-provided insurance to cover birth control.
And finally, and most importantly: it is possible to give low-earning women access to affordable contraception without making free birth control a universal entitlement -- even for those whose household income is well over $75,000.
Writing in The Huffington Post in praise of the Obama policy, Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, invokes the slogan of pro-choice rallies: "Not the church, not the state, women will decide their fate!" But Kaufman's idea of female autonomy apparently includes having both the state and the church pay for women's reproductive choices. Is it really a feminist argument that women, and their male partners, should never be responsible for even part of the expense of controlling their fertility?
This question is especially relevant because much of the rhetoric surrounding the birth control coverage mandate treats contraception as a societal good, a way to lessen the costly burden of unwanted pregnancies. It is a mindset that has not very feminist overtones of treating women's bodies as public property. Will the prevention of unplanned pregnancies come to be seen as something akin to a civic duty?
Some of the "war on religion" rhetoric emanating from the right has been over the top. When religious institutions perform extensive secular functions -- often with government subsidies -- and serve nonbelievers, they inevitably surrender part of their religious autonomy. (A Catholic hospital, for instance, cannot require that all babies born in its maternity wards be baptized into the Catholic faith.)
The issue is where the line should be drawn; and, for many Americans, that line is crossed when Catholic institutions such as hospitals, schools and charities -- with a narrow exemption for churches -- are forced to buy employee insurance policies that cover services prohibited by Catholic teachings. Catholics who use contraception, and Protestants who have little sympathy for the Catholic Church's anti-birth-control stance, may still be offended by the state dictating to the church in such matters.
President Obama has picked the wrong fight. Rather than expand birth control options for women, this policy may undermine already shaky support for the health reform legislation. Suddenly, predictions that "Obamacare" will result in less freedom and more bureaucratic authority do not seem so outlandish.
Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine.
She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. She can be reached at cyoung@realclearpolitics.com
-
MELTDOWN! ! ! !
BTW - the issue would be no different than the govt forcing jews to pray on Sunday, muslims to serve pork in their resturants as a public accomodation, ,etc.
BTW - WHY THE FUCK IS GOVT MANDATING ANYTHING AT ALL!
I don't want to pay for others' abortions and rubbers! Let them pay for it themselves!
no its not because jews aren't tax exempt you fucktard, synagogues are but the individual jews are not, you are fucking stupid. Im high so i'm enjoying this banter, i realize you are a troll, perhaps the best the internet has to offer. No one is this stupid.
it would be like the government to tell welfare recipients what healthcare they are to receive, wait ... it's exactly....
obama is a commie
-
What is at stake in the mandate debate
By Archbishop José H. Gomez *
The federal government’s new mandate — requiring Catholic charities, schools, universities and hospitals to supply employees with health insurance that covers birth control, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs — has become maybe the most controversial issue of our day.
I’ve been inspired by the unified reaction from our Catholic community. The bishops of almost every diocese in the country have spoken out. So have our largest Catholic institutions. Many individual Catholics — of every political opinion — have united in opposition.
Other religious groups and many other Americans have also joined the protest — because this new mandate, of course, affects every employer in America.
As this debate continues, it is important to remember that the Catholic Church did not choose this conflict.
The Church wants to be a partner with our neighbors and our government in building a more just and peaceful society — a society more worthy of the dignity of the human person who is the image of God. The Church’s mission in our society is to teach, heal and to care for others; to pray and to lead our neighbors to God.
Our freedom to carry out our mission is totally threatened by this new mandate. But we are not just protecting our own parochial interests. As I have said, the issues at stake go far beyond the morality of contraception. This government mandate threatens the basic character of our society and puts every American’s freedom at risk.
America was founded to be a diverse society with many layers of institutions and affiliations.
America’s founders understood that human life is more than politics or economics. They created structures of government and an economic system intended to promote individual liberty. They also created a space of freedom in which a rich “civil society” could grow — all sorts of independent churches and religions, neighborhood groups, clubs, volunteer organizations, trade unions, leagues, charities, foundations and more.
In the founders’ vision of civil society, churches and religious agencies held a special place. They believed religion was essential for democracy to flourish because religion instills the values and virtues people need for self-government.
That’s why the First Amendment protects churches and individuals from the government meddling in what they believe, or in how they express and live out those beliefs. That’s also why the government has always felt comfortable providing funding for Church charities and ministries that serve the common good of all Americans.
What’s been happening in recent decades is that government at all levels has been exerting greater influence in almost every area of American life.
In the process, non-governmental institutions are being crowded out of our public life. Civil society is shrinking and the influence of civic associations in our lives is getting weaker. The rights and freedoms of churches are increasingly restricted by court orders and government policies. Religious freedom is now reduced to the freedom to pray and to go to church.
And more and more, Church agencies are now treated as if they are arms of the government. Increasingly, these agencies are expected to serve and submit to the government’s agendas and priorities.
None of this is good for our democracy or our individual liberties.
America’s founders knew that a strong civil society and flourishing faith communities are our last best protection against tyranny — against the government becoming too big and all-powerful and all-controlling in our lives.
That is why I think this new mandate has struck such a nerve — not only with Catholics and other believers, but also with millions of our fellow citizens.
People are realizing that if the government denies our fundamental freedom to hold religious beliefs and to order our lives according to these beliefs, then there is no real freedom for anyone.
This new mandate moves us closer to what Pope Benedict XVI warned against in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (“God is Love”): “The state which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself … a state which regulates and controls everything.”
When I first wrote about this new mandate two weeks ago, I said this is a time for Catholic action and Catholic voices. This is still the time.
We need to defend our rights as Catholics. Not only to pray and worship. But also to be able to express our faith through our Catholic institutions and to make our own contribution to the decisions that affect the common good and future of our society.
We also need to help our political leaders understand what is at stake in this debate. My brother bishops and I in the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops are supporting legislation that would rescind this unjust policy. For more information and to take action, visit the U.S. bishops’ website: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm
Let’s pray for one another this week. And let’s ask Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States, to pray for our country.
Reprinted with permission of The Tidings, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, in which this article first appeared Feb. 10, 2012.
Most Rev. José H. Gomez is the Archbishop of Los Angeles, California.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46320611
this is what a real lawyer says
-
Abandon ship: At least five Senate Democrats now oppose Obama’s new contraception rule
Hotair ^ | 02/09/2012 | Allahpundit
ABC says Lieberman, Manchin, Casey, and both Nelsons (Bill and Ben) have headed for the lifeboats, but I think that count’s already outdated. According to Fox News’s Chad Pergram, John Kerry also thinks the new rule “needs to be compromised, adjusted.” If all six vote with the GOP caucus to either repeal the rule or expand the conscience exemption, then McConnell starts with 53 votes, but since Scott Brown’s been desperate lately to show he’s as good a Democrat as Elizabeth Warren, in reality it’s probably only 52. Even with pressure mounting on swing-staters like Tester and McCaskill, it’s hard to believe they’ll get to 60. Which means unless The One reverses himself on this, nothing’s likely to happen.
Any reason to believe he might? Yup: According to ABC, some of the most influential members of his cabinet think the rule is a very bad idea.
“What are we doing here?” asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, stepping outside his wheelhouse to ask about a rising storm involving the Obama administration and the Catholic Church. “What’s the point?”…
The debate within the White House on this issue was, sources say, heated, and President Obama was legitimately torn. Panetta wasn’t alone in his concerns. For months, Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley argued internally against the rule, sources tell ABC News. Biden and Daley didn’t think the rule was right on either the policy or the politics, sources said. Joshua Dubois, head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, also expressed concern…
In the fall, [Planned Parenthood's Cecile] Richards brought in polling indicating that the American people overwhelmingly supported the birth control benefit in health insurance. She also highlighted statistics showing the overwhelming use of birth control.
The Vice President and others argued that this wouldn’t be seen as an issue of contraception – it would be seen as an issue of religious liberty. They questioned the polling of the rule advocates, arguing that it didn’t explain the issue in full, it ignored the question of what religious groups should have to pay for. And they argued that women voters for whom this was an important issue weren’t likely to vote for Mitt Romney, who has drawn a strong anti-abortion line as a presidential candidate, saying he would end federal funding to Planned Parenthood and supporting a “personhood” amendment that defines life as beginning at the moment of fertilization.
We’re in deep, deep trouble when Joe Biden is the voice of reason within the inner circle. Follow the link and see who he was up against on the other side: Planned Parenthood, Sebelius, Barbara Boxer — and David Plouffe, who no doubt was eyeing turnout among young O-bots and women in swing states. Why either of those groups would stay home over a slightly expanded religious-conscience exemption to contraception coverage under ObamaCare, I have no idea. Leftist groups will be too busy this summer painting Romney or Santorum as the new Hitler to agitate against Obama for expanding the exemption; besides, as we know from their changing opinions on Gitmo and drone strikes, they’re willing to cut O a lot of slack when it comes to betraying the cause. In fact, it’s the GOP’s base that desperately needs rallying, not the Democrats’. A PPP poll taken two weeks ago found that there are more Dems who are “very excited” to vote this fall than Republicans, no doubt a byproduct of despair over Romney on the right. If O had quietly granted a robust exemption on contraception to religiously-affiliated groups, he’d probably have had to weather a few weeks of grumbling from the left before the issue faded. Instead he handed the GOP a juicy culture-war issue to energize conservatives and left a flaming bag of shinola on the porch of all the religious liberals who went to bat for O-Care on the assumption that he wouldn’t force contraception coverage down their throats. Oops.
Here’s Marco Rubio on Fox this morning alongside Joe Manchin, whom I forgot in yesterday’s roll call of swing-state Democrats who are nervous about the new rule. He and Rubio are co-sponsoring legislation to repeal it. Like I say, I doubt they’ll have the votes, but the politics of a centrist Democrat joining up with a tea-party senator to challenge them is pure poison for the White House among undecideds
-
Cardinal-Designate Dolan: Obama Reneging On Birth Control Provision
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/09/cardinal-designate-dolan-obama-reneging-on-birth-control-provision
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan blasted President Obama this morning on the issue of the health care law that requires religious institutions to provide free birth control to their employees, a violation of church teachings.
LISTEN: WCBS 880′s Rich Lamb reports
Speaking on ”CBS This Morning” Dolan said he met with the president weeks ago in the Oval Office to talk about the law. Dolan said the president gave his promise the provision would go away, but it hasn’t.
“It seems to be at odds with very sincere assurances that he gave me, that he wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in, so I can’t figure it out,” Dolan said.
The new rule, which is part of the Obama administration’s affordable health care act, requires all employers who provide health insurance to their workers to cover basic birth control as well, including the morning after pill.
The nation’s 355,000 churches are exempt, but religious charities, hospitals and universities are not.
“When I left the Oval Office, where I was very grateful for his invitation to be there, I left with high hopes. That nothing his administration would do would impede the good work that he admitted and acknowledged in the church,” Dolan said. “And I’m afraid I don’t have those sentiments of hope now.”
Sources close to the Cardinal-designate tell CBS 2 that Dolan feels betrayed.
“I’m honest in saying that I’m a bit let down,” Dolan told CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have been battling it out over the issue.
Democrats say it’s not about religion at all, but rather giving women the freedom to make their own choices.
“My colleagues and I stand in solidarity with American women who have waited decades for equity in contraceptive coverage,” said Westchester Rep. Nita Lowey.
“No one is telling the bishops anything about the religious practices of the Catholic church,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler from Manhattan. ”What is at issue here is that the bishops want the ability to impose their religious beliefs on other people, on the employees of religiously affiliated hospitals and universities.”
WATCH: CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reports
But Republicans in Congress plan to make the birth control provision in the Obama health care law an election year issue.
“This is very straightforward. This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something they teach their members they shouldn’t be doing,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) said Wednesday.
House Speaker John Boehner is already laying out steps to reverse the policy.
“If the president does not reverse the department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution that we’re sworn to uphold, must,” Boehner said Wednesday.
Most health care plans already cover contraception and according to surveys, most Catholic women use it and according to the Center for Disease Control, 99 percent of women will use contraceptives at some point.
“That’s the point of the affordable health care act, that all Americans will have access to the kind of health care they need,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois).
Obama is standing by the new policy, but says he is looking for ways to compromise, including one option where religious employers would not have to cover birth control so long as they refer employees to an insurer who would provide it.
The new policy is set to take effect in August.
Please share your thoughts below…
-
Cardinal-Designate Dolan: Obama Reneging On Birth Control Provision
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/09/cardinal-designate-dolan-obama-reneging-on-birth-control-provision
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan blasted President Obama this morning on the issue of the health care law that requires religious institutions to provide free birth control to their employees, a violation of church teachings.
LISTEN: WCBS 880′s Rich Lamb reports
Speaking on ”CBS This Morning” Dolan said he met with the president weeks ago in the Oval Office to talk about the law. Dolan said the president gave his promise the provision would go away, but it hasn’t.
“It seems to be at odds with very sincere assurances that he gave me, that he wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in, so I can’t figure it out,” Dolan said.
The new rule, which is part of the Obama administration’s affordable health care act, requires all employers who provide health insurance to their workers to cover basic birth control as well, including the morning after pill.
The nation’s 355,000 churches are exempt, but religious charities, hospitals and universities are not.
“When I left the Oval Office, where I was very grateful for his invitation to be there, I left with high hopes. That nothing his administration would do would impede the good work that he admitted and acknowledged in the church,” Dolan said. “And I’m afraid I don’t have those sentiments of hope now.”
Sources close to the Cardinal-designate tell CBS 2 that Dolan feels betrayed.
“I’m honest in saying that I’m a bit let down,” Dolan told CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have been battling it out over the issue.
Democrats say it’s not about religion at all, but rather giving women the freedom to make their own choices.
“My colleagues and I stand in solidarity with American women who have waited decades for equity in contraceptive coverage,” said Westchester Rep. Nita Lowey.
“No one is telling the bishops anything about the religious practices of the Catholic church,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler from Manhattan. ”What is at issue here is that the bishops want the ability to impose their religious beliefs on other people, on the employees of religiously affiliated hospitals and universities.”
WATCH: CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reports
But Republicans in Congress plan to make the birth control provision in the Obama health care law an election year issue.
“This is very straightforward. This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization that they have to pay for something they teach their members they shouldn’t be doing,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) said Wednesday.
House Speaker John Boehner is already laying out steps to reverse the policy.
“If the president does not reverse the department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution that we’re sworn to uphold, must,” Boehner said Wednesday.
Most health care plans already cover contraception and according to surveys, most Catholic women use it and according to the Center for Disease Control, 99 percent of women will use contraceptives at some point.
“That’s the point of the affordable health care act, that all Americans will have access to the kind of health care they need,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois).
Obama is standing by the new policy, but says he is looking for ways to compromise, including one option where religious employers would not have to cover birth control so long as they refer employees to an insurer who would provide it.
The new policy is set to take effect in August.
Please share your thoughts below…
is this the same religion that let it's priest molest and rape children then hid it by moving the priest to another town,sorry if i don't feel sorry for them
-
Its not about the Catholic Church jackass, and its not about rubbers or the pill.
Its about thugbama forcing employers to cover certain types of coverages they may not want to cover or pay for.
Take your authoratarian bullshit and shove it.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46320611
this is what a real lawyer says
-
Thats the fucking problem! People of all types dont want this stupid law in the first place!
-
all kinds of laws people don't want,your point is ;D
-
all kinds of laws people don't want,your point is ;D
My point is that when you get the next GOP President dictating every aspect of your life via mandate you will understand why people are so pissed off over this.
-
cheaper in the long run :-*
-
cheaper in the long run :-*
Ok, fine - is that your position?
Lets say Romney gets elected by some sort and crime spikes nationally. The govt is running out of money and cant afford more cops. So how does romney want to deal with it?
He says that crime is costing lives, costing property damage, etc.
He then mandates the following:
1. All citizens are forced to take self defense classes on the basis that being trained they will be less % victims.
2. All citizens are forced to purchase a pistol and semi auto rifle from only companies the govt say is ok on the basis that more guns in law abiding citizens hands equals less crime since the poice can no longer deal with it.
WOULD YOU BE OK WITH THAT?
-
i have both so i'm good with it :)
-
Pro-choice Republicans are begging their party to drop this fight over contraception before it’s too late. Turning to a discussion about access to birth control will be nothing short of a disaster, they say.
The new and unexpected war over contraception may not end up as only a battle between the White House and the Republican party. It could end up as a fight between the GOP and itself. As we saw during the 2011’s push to defund Planned Parenthood — when some Republican Senators rebuked their colleagues in the House for attacking the organization — Republicans on Capitol Hill do not speak with one voice on matters of women’s health. Now, as Speaker John Boehner seemingly prepares to turn the House GOP’s attention to contraception, pro-choice Republicans are warning that the GOP may become the next Komen For The Cure.
“I think this week’s outrage over the Komen decision should be a warning to the Republican party about how quickly there was a mass outrage over further and further attacks on general women’s health,” Kellie Ferguson, executive director of Republican Majority for choice, told me Wednesday. “You could see the same backlash on attacks on contraception.”
Ferguson calls the Republican rhetoric on contraception “crossing the line” — taking the discussion away from choice issues (where Republicans can find some broader, if still national minority constituency) and into the realm of the fringy extreme.
“For the last number of years, we in the pro-choice community in general — and we specifically as Republicans — have been saying as this pandering to a sort of social conservative faction of voters continues, you’re going to see the line pushed further and further and further,” she said. “And we’re now crossing the line from discussion of when we should regulate abortion to when we should now regulate legal doctor-prescribed medications like birth control, which is woven in the fabric of society as an acceptable medication.”
She pointed to widely-reported polling showing that a majority of Americans — and a majority of Catholics — support the White House policy and urged her party to take a step back before it’s too late.
A high-profile debate over contraception will only serve to alienate voters and deny Republicans the White House in the fall, Ferguson suggested.
“There’s a big leap between people who vote at a Republican caucus and the majority that will vote in a general election,” she said. “I think pigeon-holing the party as against women’s health in general not only hurts the party, but it hurts our key candidates.”
-
Skip to comments.
(Catholic TV/Radio Network) EWTN sues US government over contraception mandate
EWTN News ^ | 2/9/2012 | Benjamin Mann
Catholic media network EWTN sued the federal government Feb. 9, challenging the Obama administration's rule requiring many religious ministries to subsidize contraception and sterilization in their health plans.
“We had no other option but to take this to the courts,” EWTN President and CEO Michael Warsaw said in an announcement about the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on Wednesday. “There is no question that this mandate violates our First Amendment rights.”
“Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice,” Warsaw explained. “Either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable.”
Senior attorneys at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed the suit on behalf of the media network, against the Department of Health and Human Services, department secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other government agencies involved with the federal contraception mandate.
Finalized Jan. 20, 2012 as part of federal health care reform, the mandate forces all employers – except those that primarily hire and serve members of one religious faith and exist for the sake of promoting religious values – to buy insurance coverage that will offer sterilization and contraception without a co-pay.
Because EWTN serves not only Catholics but the public at large, the network would not qualify for the religious exemption offered by Secretary Sebelius.
At least one of the mandate's required drugs, the emergency contraceptive “Ella,” has the potential to cause an early-stage abortion.
The U.S. Catholic bishops have denounced the rule that “forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs, and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.”
In his announcement of the lawsuit, Warsaw said the federal contraception mandate was “particularly hard on Catholics, because Catholic organizations, such as hospitals, schools, social service agencies, media outlets and others, serve people regardless of their religious beliefs.”
But he made it clear that the federal rule should concern people of all beliefs.
“We are taking this action to defend not only ourselves but also to protect other institutions – Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and secular – from having this mandate imposed upon them.”
Along with the public opposition from over 160 U.S. Catholic bishops, the rule has also drawn opposition from the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as Protestant and Orthodox Jewish leaders.
Meanwhile, Secretary Sebelius has given non-exempt religious institutions an extra year to comply with the “preventive services” mandate. During this time, however, these religious employers must refer their staff to providers of the same drugs and devices.
Warsaw pointed out that this alternative, proposed as a temporary accommodation, also trampled EWTN's conscience rights.
“The government is forcing EWTN, first, to inform its employees about how to get contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs, a concept known as forced speech.”
“To make the matter worse, the government then will force EWTN to use its donors’ funds to pay for these same morally objectionable procedures or to pay for the huge fines it will levy against us if we fail to provide health care insurance.”
If the administration's rule remains in place, the media network could eventually face fines of over $600,000 annually for refusing to underwrite policies contradicting its beliefs.
“This is a moment when EWTN, as a Catholic organization, has to step up and say that enough is enough,” the network's president and CEO declared.
Health and Human Services' rule is also facing legal challenges from Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic institution, and from the interdenominational Colorado Christian University.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing all three ministries in their lawsuits. Lawyers from the fund recently won a 9-0 victory against the federal government in a Supreme Court case regarding the self-governance of a Lutheran church and school.
EWTN is providing further information about the mandate and its lawsuit at www.ewtn.com/hhsmandate.
-
When Obama voted for Infanticide
NRO ^ | 2/9/12 | Andrew McCarthy
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:41:25 PM by chiller
What I personally find most offensive about the HHS mandate is the shock with which it has been met. Why? This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.
Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — “that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it” when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting “born alive” legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.
That is not a secret. The Obamedia, of course, refused to cover it while they were running down Sarah Palin’s third-grade report card. The clueless John McCain failed to bring any attention to it.
-
Joe Biden on birth-control furor: 'We can work it out'
Politico ^ | 2/9/12 | JENNIFER EPSTEIN
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:24:40 PM by ColdOne
Biden, the nation’s first Catholic vice president, was among the top aides who had warned President Barack Obama that the decision could be politically explosive, particularly with Catholics, Bloomberg reported Wednesday.
“As a practicing Catholic, I am of the view that this can be worked out and should be worked out. And I know the president feels the same way,” Biden said.
As the issue has heated up in recent days, Obama has stayed quiet. When reporters shouted questions to him Thursday, he declined to answer. “Come on, guys,” Obama said.
Biden said there has been “a lot of misunderstanding” from people who don’t know that the rule doesn’t take effect for more than a year. Still, he repeated, the administration will engage in a “significant attempt to work this out.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
Obama Tells Reporters Asking About Contraception Controversy 'Come On, Guys'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/09/obama-tells-reporter-asking-about-contraception-church-controversy-co ^
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:23:03 PM by chessplayer
Barack Obama today deflected reporters from questions about the growing controversy surrounding religious organizations having to provide contraception to their employees.
As MSNBC's Chris Matthews reported on Hardball moments ago, the President stonewalled reporters saying, "Come on, guys" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about this thing that’s developed. Even at a photo-op with the Italian Prime Minister late this afternoon, President Obama couldn’t escape questions about this contraceptive issue and religious organizations. Let’s listen to what happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Is there anything on the contraception controversy that you can share with us?
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Thank you, guys. Come on, guys.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: [Laughing] Come on, guys? Come on, guys?
-
why do catholics care
-
why do catholics care
You really dont get it do you?
-
why do catholics care
-
Gloves Off: Sen. Rand Paul Blasts HHS Mandate as ‘Authoritarian’ & ‘Totalitarian’
Posted on February 8, 2012 at 9:48pm by Becket Adams
Comments (149)
In an op-ed for National Review online, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) denounces the now infamous decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force religious employers to cover the cost of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in its employees’ health-care coverage, saying that it’s just one more thing that makes “Obamacare” “socialized medicine.”
Sen. Paul goes so far to say that the decision by the HHS is “something generally witnessed only in totalitarian and authoritarian regimes,” and says that it is a direct violation of religious liberty, for all Christians, not just Catholics.
“Because ‘contraception’ includes abortifacients, this decision — made under the powers granted to the executive branch under Obamacare — also threatens many Protestant employers,” Sen. Paul writes.
“The decision is the latest and most outrageous example of why Obamacare — socialized medicine — must be repealed in its entirety. It is also a shocking example of the administration’s choosing to ignore the opinions and beliefs of millions of Americans.”
But the Senator didn’t leave it at that; he was just getting started:
And while the Obama administration has never been a protector of pro-life Americans’ conscience rights — for example, it supports the federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives — this latest decision attempts to crush the freedom of the Catholic Church in this country. The president has declared a “war on religion,” as Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post last week.
Considering Obama’s comments about rural Pennsylvanians who “cling” to their religion, however, this is perhaps not entirely surprising.
…
All Americans’ religious freedoms are protected by the First Amendment. The earliest colonists who came to this country in the pre–Revolutionary War days traveled here because they were seeking a home in which they could practice their religion in freedom and peace without government persecution. Religious freedom — which has been called “our first liberty” — is ingrained in the very fabric of our national culture.
But HHS and the administration have decided that their goal of state-run health care trumps our first liberty. What the president is attempting to do here is something generally witnessed only in totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
Read Sen. Paul’s full op-ed here.
-
GOP Candidates Oppose HHS Mandate (647)
Presidential candidates weigh in on religious freedom.
by EWTN NEWS/CNA02/07/2012 Comments (2)
– Shutterstock/Illustration by Melissa Hartog
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum encouraged Catholic groups across the U.S. to disobey a federal mandate requiring them to buy health-insurance plans that violate Church teaching.
Santorum was asked on a Feb. 1 talk show what advice he would give to Catholic hospitals, schools, adoption agencies and other charities struggling with the mandate.
“Civil disobedience,” he responded. “This will not stand.”
The GOP contender spoke as a guest on political commentator Hugh Hewitt’s radio show and said that his strong concern about “the government taking over health care” is a primary reason he decided to run for president.
Santorum said that the mandate, which was issued under the authority of the 2010 health-care overhaul, should come as no surprise.
“If you’re going to give people secular power, then they’re going to use it in a secular fashion,” he said, adding that those who had embraced the health-care legislation had permitted the problem to develop.
Turning to the government to provide “a right to health care” gives the government power to “tell you how to exercise that right,” he explained.
He reiterated that “government isn’t the answer to the social ills,” but that families, communities, charities and individuals of faith should instead fill this role.
Santorum said he believes the mandate will eventually come before the Supreme Court, where he does not think the administration’s argument will prevail.
He pointed to the Jan. 11 Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC ruling, in which the Supreme Court justices unanimously upheld the “ministerial exception” that allows religious organizations to make employment decisions without interference from the government.
Legal experts have said that the decision may have far-reaching consequences because it rejects the narrow definition of religion that has been utilized by the current administration.
Santorum described the ruling as “a 9-0 decision that said the Obama administration can’t roll over people of faith when it comes to hiring.”
He added that despite that ruling the “radical, secular government” continues to downplay the importance of the First Amendment.
In continuing the battle for religious freedom, Santorum urged Catholic organizations to “fight” the mandate through both court cases and civil disobedience, adding that they should “go to war with the federal government over this one.”
Previous Feb. 3 story below.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the HHS contraception mandate that he says takes “particular aim” at Catholics.
“I stand with the Catholic bishops and all religious organizations in their strenuous objection to this liberty- and conscience-stifling regulation,” Romney wrote in a Feb. 3 Washington Examiner column titled “President Obama vs. Religious Liberty.”
If elected president, the former Massachusetts governor said, he would eliminate the mandate “on day one.”
“Such rules don’t belong in the America that I believe in.”
The mandate, announced on Jan. 20, requires employers to provide insurance coverage for FDA-approved sterilization procedures and contraceptive drugs, including some abortifacient drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services classified the procedures and drugs as “preventive care.”
The religious exemption for the mandate would not cover most Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations, despite Catholic teaching that the use of these procedures and drugs is sinful and objectively immoral.
Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, said that religious liberty is “facing the most serious assault in generations” from “liberalism itself.”
He charged that the rule is “taking particular aim at Roman Catholics.”
“The Obama administration is forcing religious institutions to choose between violating their conscience or dropping health-care coverage for their employees, effectively destroying their ability to carry on their work.”
Romney incorporated his pledge against the mandate into his general position against the 2010 health-care legislation, which opponents call “Obamacare.” He said he is committed to overturning it “root and branch” and will issue an executive order telling his secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all U.S. states.
However, his column’s dominant focus remained religious liberty.
Romney charged that devotion to religious freedom “goes out the window” for “the agenda of the left wing of the Democratic Party.” He linked the mandate to abortion on demand and opposition to abstinence education.
“They would force Catholics and others who have beliefs rooted in their faith to sacrifice the teachings of their faith to the mandate of federal bureaucrats,” Romney said.
He also criticized the Obama administration’s 12-month extension for religious groups to comply with the mandate, calling it “a clumsy attempt to push this matter past this year’s presidential election.”
“The America I believe in is governed by the U.S. Constitution, and I will not hesitate to use the powers of the presidency to protect religious liberty,” Romney stated.
All four leading Republican presidential candidates have opposed the mandate.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a convert to Catholicism, charged that the mandate is part of a “war against Christianity.” During his campaign in Florida, ahead of the state primary, he pledged to overturn all “anti-religious” federal policies on his first day in office.
At a Jan. 31 campaign stop in Colorado, Catholic and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said the mandate makes people act against their faith.
“Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius said, ‘Too bad. If it goes against what you believe, then you believe the wrong things,’” Santorum said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “This is just the tip of the iceberg of what we can expect.”
In an October statement on his website, Texas Congressman Ron Paul said the mandate “violates the conscience of millions of pro-life Americans.” He said he views the “regulatory overstep” as “payback to Planned Parenthood and big pharmaceutical companies for their support of Obamacare.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/gop-candidates-oppose-hhs-mandate/#ixzz1lwTw7MHk
-
You know, even though i don't give a rats ass about how the Catholic Church feels about this, and believe they are partly stuck on 13th century stupid, you are right 333333, its a fucked up deal. If people don't like the health coverage they provide they should be able to go elsewhere and although the health care they provide should have some standards this shouldn't be one of them.
-
why do catholics care
-
Blacken, the issue is not the catholic church! The issue is that the federal govt is mandating things that employers and individuals have to purchase that violate the very tenents of their beliefs.
Lets say you are a jewish hospital and serve kosher food in the cafeteria. The hospital employees christians and hindus. Should those christians be able to get the jewish hospital forced to serve non-kosher food in the cafeteria? Yes or no?
-
why do you keep posting shit about the catholics then
-
Blacken, the issue is not the catholic church! The issue is that the federal govt is mandating things that employers and individuals have to purchase that violate the very tenents of their beliefs.
Lets say you are a jewish hospital and serve kosher food in the cafeteria. The hospital employees christians and hindus. Should those christians be able to get the jewish hospital forced to serve non-kosher food in the cafeteria? Yes or no?
they don't have to purchase shit
-
they don't have to purchase shit
Yes they do! Are you really so blind to not understand why people are pissed off?
Its not about the church or abortion or pills, its about the govt forcing people to buy shit they dont want to!
-
what are they forcing them to buy
-
Archbishop Dolan urges Obama to back down on birth control
CBS News ^ | 2/9/12 | Corbett B. Daly
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:44:59 AM by Elvina
"This was a terribly misguided judgement," Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York said in an interview of CBS This Morning.
Dolan, who is set to become a cardinal later this month, said he met with Obama in the Oval Office late last year and was promised the White House would work with the Catholic church on a number of issues, including education, healthcare and charitable work.
"I am hoping that this massive negative reaction to this ruling, I am hoping that he will go back to those assurances that he gave me," Dolan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Obama lied to the Bishop? No wonder - obama is satan so this is par for the course.
-
what are they forcing them to buy
-
what are they forcing them to buy
They are forcing them to pay for products that go against their teachings
-
hahahaha these bishops live in the 16 century, if they think that the majority of the catholics don't use birth control they are mistaken,the repubs are jumping on another non issue,no wonder they can't run a decent candidate
-
Obama birth control policy splits Democrats amid signs White House seeks a way out
WASHINGTON POST ^ | 2/9/2012 | ap
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:50:41 PM by tobyhill
Democrats are deeply divided over President Barack Obama’s new rule that religious schools and hospitals must provide insurance for free birth control to their employees amid fresh signs that the administration was scrambling for a way out.
“This is not only unacceptable, it is un-American,” says Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a Catholic who faces re-election in November in a state where Wednesday nights are reserved for church services.
Another Catholic senator, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, has pleaded with the administration “to correct this decision which will erode the conscience rights” that have been protected for decades. His opposition echoes the criticism of his bishop in Scranton, Rev. Joseph C. Bambera.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Boooooommm!!!! Rot in hell obama. fuck you and your family and toss me on whatever list you want you ghetto looting criminal thug!
-
hahahaha these bishops live in the 16 century, if they think that the majority of the catholics don't use birth control they are mistaken,the repubs are jumping on another non issue,no wonder they can't run a decent candidate
The issue is not birth control asshole!!!!! Why do you pray for obama and swbellius to run your life?
-
Archbishop Dolan urges Obama to back down on birth control
CBS News ^ | 2/9/12 | Corbett B. Daly
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:44:59 AM by Elvina
"This was a terribly misguided judgement," Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York said in an interview of CBS This Morning.
Dolan, who is set to become a cardinal later this month, said he met with Obama in the Oval Office late last year and was promised the White House would work with the Catholic church on a number of issues, including education, healthcare and charitable work.
"I am hoping that this massive negative reaction to this ruling, I am hoping that he will go back to those assurances that he gave me," Dolan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Obama lied to the Bishop? No wonder - obama is satan so this is par for the course.
-
the repubs run losers for candidates now they look for something to save them priceless :D :D
-
Obama lied to the bishop no different thsn reagan in the exorcist lied to Fr. Karas
Ghettothugbama is going to hell
-
the repubs run losers for candidates now they look for something to save them priceless :D :D
Santorum is tied w your evil ghetto thug looting grifter son of an ape messiah obama
-
Skip to comments.
20 Catholic (and Christian) Institutions Opposing Obama/HHS Mandate
CatholicVote.org ^ | February 9, 2012 | thomas Peters
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:32:53 PM by Salvation
20 Catholic (and Christian) Institutions Opposing Obama/HHS Mandate
by Thomas Peters
10 hours ago (February 9, 2012)
My list of bishops who have publicly condemned the Obama/HHS mandate is now at 171 (representing almost 95% of Catholic dioceses). Only 4 bishops have yet to issue statements — and I expect they will shortly!
Now I’d like to begin compiling a list of Catholic (and Christian) institutions who have said publicly they will fight or oppose the mandate.
A few ground-rules:
•I’m only going to include institutions that have issued public statements online or a statement to the press which is available online.
•Please do not email me additions — submit them in the comments instead (I don’t want to be inundated by emails related to this post!). I will be regularly checking the comments for updates.
•Please triple check that an institution you want to include is not already posted here or in the comments.
The Honor Roll (I’ll figure out how to order these once the list has grown):
•1. EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) – filed lawsuit
•2. Belmont Abbey College – filed lawsuit
•3. Colorado Christian University (nondenominational) – filed lawsuit
•4. University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN – issued statement to press (better link needed)
•5. Christendom College in Front Royal, VA – issued statement
•6. Ave Maria University in Naples, FL – considering legal options, “will not comply”
•7-10: Aquinas College in Nashville, TN (joined by three other Dominican schools) – issued statement
•11. University of Dallas in Dallas, TX – issued statement
•12. Priests for Life in Staten Island, NY – filed lawsuit
•13. Nashville Dominican Sisters in Nashville, TN – issued statement
•14. Mount St. Mary’s University and Seminary in Emmitsburg, MD – issued statement
•15. Notre Dame University in South Bend, IN – issued statement
•16. Benedictine College in Atchison, KS – issued statement
•17. Catholic University of America in Washington, DC – issued statement to the press
•18. Catholic Health Association – issued statement
•19. Catholic Charities, USA – issued statement
•20. Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities – issued statement
Good to see Catholic universities leading the charge on this!
It would be helpful if someone could help me determine the number of employees at these institutions (to calculate the potential monetary fine/penality they would face for not complying with the mandate). Please include this tally in the comments — thanks!
-
Santorum is tied w your evil ghetto thug looting grifter son of an ape messiah obama
-
Skip to comments.
20 Catholic (and Christian) Institutions Opposing Obama/HHS Mandate
CatholicVote.org ^ | February 9, 2012 | thomas Peters
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 10:32:53 PM by Salvation
20 Catholic (and Christian) Institutions Opposing Obama/HHS Mandate
by Thomas Peters
10 hours ago (February 9, 2012)
My list of bishops who have publicly condemned the Obama/HHS mandate is now at 171 (representing almost 95% of Catholic dioceses). Only 4 bishops have yet to issue statements — and I expect they will shortly!
Now I’d like to begin compiling a list of Catholic (and Christian) institutions who have said publicly they will fight or oppose the mandate.
A few ground-rules:
•I’m only going to include institutions that have issued public statements online or a statement to the press which is available online.
•Please do not email me additions — submit them in the comments instead (I don’t want to be inundated by emails related to this post!). I will be regularly checking the comments for updates.
•Please triple check that an institution you want to include is not already posted here or in the comments.
The Honor Roll (I’ll figure out how to order these once the list has grown):
•1. EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) – filed lawsuit
•2. Belmont Abbey College – filed lawsuit
•3. Colorado Christian University (nondenominational) – filed lawsuit
•4. University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN – issued statement to press (better link needed)
•5. Christendom College in Front Royal, VA – issued statement
•6. Ave Maria University in Naples, FL – considering legal options, “will not comply”
•7-10: Aquinas College in Nashville, TN (joined by three other Dominican schools) – issued statement
•11. University of Dallas in Dallas, TX – issued statement
•12. Priests for Life in Staten Island, NY – filed lawsuit
•13. Nashville Dominican Sisters in Nashville, TN – issued statement
•14. Mount St. Mary’s University and Seminary in Emmitsburg, MD – issued statement
•15. Notre Dame University in South Bend, IN – issued statement
•16. Benedictine College in Atchison, KS – issued statement
•17. Catholic University of America in Washington, DC – issued statement to the press
•18. Catholic Health Association – issued statement
•19. Catholic Charities, USA – issued statement
•20. Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities – issued statement
Good to see Catholic universities leading the charge on this!
It would be helpful if someone could help me determine the number of employees at these institutions (to calculate the potential monetary fine/penality they would face for not complying with the mandate). Please include this tally in the comments — thanks!
hahahaha that's going to change the way people vote :D :D :D :D you should be running one of these losers campaign :D
-
You will lose this fight blackass. just like Father Karas beat the demon out of Reagan in the Exorcist , so we shall prevail against your evil black mass satanic priest obama
-
it's to bad the church didn't put as much effort when they knew they were raping the little boys :'(
-
the repubs run losers for candidates now they look for something to save them priceless :D :D
-
What does that have to do w the fact that thugghettobama is acting like a mugabe tyrant?
Personally, and i hope fbi, dhs, etc are reading this, if a wmd went off in dc and took out all of these pofs, i would celebrate.
-
Obamacare and Healthy Kids Initiative Requires Pork Be Served In Jewish and Muslim Schools
We're Faux'ed | Ed Sherdlu
Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:02:35 PM by MindBender26
Today in Washington, First Lady Michelle Obama announced dictates of Obamacare and her Healthy Kids Initiative will require pork, bacon, ham and other non-kosher, non-halal foods be served the nations’ schools, including those operated by Jewish or Muslim organizations.
“Everyone understands the benefits of chicken in a diet, but pork is often called “The Other White Meat” said the First Lady.
“Lean pork is a great alternative to fatty beef” added Second Lady Jill Biden who joined Mrs. Obama for the announcement, held at the new Mother Seaton – Christ the Redeemer Birth Control Pill Distribution Center. The only hitch in the entire announcement came when Mrs. Biden’s microphone blanked out when she said the words “fatty beef” the first time. When asked by reporters to repeat the words to help them understand, she said “Fatty beef, you know, like…..” and then coyly pointed to Mrs. Obama’s derrière.
When later quizzed by the media as to whether the rule mandating pork and pork products violated the kosher and halal rules, and might therefore force observant Jews and Muslims to violate their religions codes, White House spokesman Jay Carney states “We’re giving the Roman Catholics 12 months to come to terms with the president’s demand that Catholic institutions give up 2000 years of religions principles and provide contraceptives, and in fact abortion to anyone who asks, so the Jews should be able to accept this in 6 months.”
When asked if his answer mentioning only Jews seemed to somehow remove the requirement from Muslims to serve pork, Carey said “Well, Ax (Obama political guru David Axelrod) says contributions are flowing in from U.S. Muslims, so we may find a way to drop the prohibition on for pork and pork products for Muslims.” “Why not” said Carey. “When was the last time you saw a fat woman in a burka ordering a bacon cheeseburger happy meal?”
-
A Matter of Conscience
President McLean’s Letter Regarding the Obama Administration’s Contraceptive Mandate
Note: On January 30, 2012, Thomas Aquinas College President Michael F. McLean mailed the following letter to California’s two U.S. senators, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer, and the College’s local congressman, Rep. Elton Gallegly:
I am writing on behalf of Thomas Aquinas College to express the College’s strong disapproval of the Obama Administration’s decision to require that coverage for sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.
Voluntary sterilization, abortion, and artificial contraception are all directly contrary to Catholic teaching and cannot, in any way, be supported by individual Catholics or Catholic institutions desiring to live in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The administration’s allowance of a one-year delay before religious employers are forced to comply with the HHS mandate does not ameliorate the situation at all; in the words of Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “in effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”
Archbishop Dolan continued: “Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” Making a similar point, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said “this mandate gravely compromises religious liberty.”
Americans hold dear our country’s long tradition of honoring freedom of conscience for its citizens. We at Thomas Aquinas College hope, therefore, that you will join with us and with all who believe in the Constitution and religious liberty to oppose this mandate. I urge you to expend every effort to have it withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Michael F. McLean
President
Thomas Aquinas College
Cc: Barack Obama, President of the United States
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services
Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York Cardinal
Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston
Archbishop José Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles
Obama is Damien
-
it's to bad the church didn't put as much effort when they knew they were raping the little boys :'(
yet another reason gays shouldnt be trusted...;)
-
Debate is about religious freedom, not birth control
First lady Michelle Obama and President Barack Obama say goodbye to Pope Benedict XVI after an audience at the Vatican in 2009. (SAUL LOEB, Getty-AFP photo / July 10, 2009)
John Kass
February 10, 2012
The way President Barack Obama has started a war with Roman Catholics, you might think Obama never set foot in a predominantly Catholic town like Chicago.
Even a lowly alderman would have played it smarter. And Obama is much smarter than some machine alderman. The man spent years at the feet of the machine lords, petitioning for their favor. And they're mostly Catholic. Didn't Obama learn anything?
John Kass
Bio | E-mail | Recent columns
Ads by GoogleOh, he learned about playing the empty vessel to the yearning throngs of journalists and other mythmakers desperate for something secular to believe in. He endorsed the politicians they told him to endorse, he voted absentee rather than challenge authority and he climbed his ambition to power.
But then, recently, he decided to challenge the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. And his new policy to force religious hospitals and schools to offer abortion-inducing drugs and birth control in health care plans for employees is a clear violation of religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
It demonstrates to Americans that their government is not only willing but eager to dominate faith, by telling religions how to practice their beliefs. And if they refuse, then the faithful will feel the federal wrath.
So the president's policy is not only mistaken and insensitive and wrong, it is the perfect expression of everything Americans fear about the ever-increasing federal leviathan.
What we fear is a bureaucracy that by nature can consider neither soul nor sin, but only power and politics presented as reason.
Do Americans want access to contraceptives, and do some want abortion-inducing drugs? Of course, some do, and arguments have been made in support of such policy.
But should Catholic hospitals be forced by the federal government to provide such abortion-inducing drugs and other birth control in violation of faith?
Most Americans cringe at such a prospect. We see abusive federal power battering the church and we wonder, rightfully: What's next?
Naturally, Republicans will try to take advantage of this, but the problem is bigger than partisan politics. And the feeding of the federal leviathan isn't particular to Obama, as President George W. Bush and the No Child Left Behind Act proved to educators.
With great will and personal charm, Obama pushed through government-run health care. The problem was never with giving care to the needy. The problem was that this policy increased federal power. And now Americans are learning a terrible fact about what happens to freedom as federal authority grows. A line in a Wall Street Journal editorial makes this clear.
"When politics determines who can or should receive what benefits, and who pays what for it, government will use its force to dictate the outcomes that it wants — either for reasons of cost, or to promote its values, which in this case means that 'women's health' trumps religious conscience."
Obama has sent the spinners and town criers galloping out of the White House to say, incorrectly, that this debate is only about contraception. It is not. It was always about federal power trampling religious freedom, and now the White House is panicking.
That was evident last week at a prayer breakfast in Washington where he stressed how often he prays.
In a column last week titled "Obama see the light: Praise the Lord and pass the taxes," I poked fun at the public holiness of the political man. But that was sarcasm. Today I want to be clear.
Despite the president's proclamation of a few years ago that America is not a Christian nation, even Saul Alinsky would agree that this entire enterprise was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
And one central principle is that human beings are imperfect sinners (amazingly, even federal bureaucrats are imperfect), which means that the humans among us are in violation most of the time.
You wouldn't believe it from hearing politicians talk, since they're so right about everything, so sure of this policy or that policy, advocates on the political left and the right and the center, all quite certain they're correct.
But most of us aren't certain. I'm not. And I don't think you are either. The one thing we are certain about is that it is inevitable we'll violate the teachings or principles of our faith.
We're human. If we're not made of clay, we sure do act like it. Whatever our faith, we'll either ignore or deny our transgressions, or we'll acknowledge them and start walking on that hard road of repentance and atonement. Often we stray off that road when things get too steep. And most of us do all this in private, and that's where it belongs.
Americans understand this dialogue is between the individual and God, and that there's no room in there for the federal leviathan.
You and I can and do hold widely different views. But one thing we probably can agree on is that when we're in church or another house of worship, we know what we should be doing:
Sitting in the back pew, heads bowed, begging mercy for sins.
That's much better than puffing ourselves up and telling ourselves what's so right about what we did and what's so wrong about what the other fellow did.
But it's a private thing. And it is so very difficult.
So difficult, in fact, just about the last thing Americans need is some politician whispering in our ears, even if it is the president surrounded by a host of lawyers from Health and Human Services singing his praises.
I could be wrong, but I think there are some places even politics and government don't belong.
jskass@tribune.com
-
United We Stand for Religious Freedom
ObamaCare's contraception mandate stands the First Amendment on its head.
By DONALD WUERL, CHARLES COLSON AND MEIR Y. SOLOVEICHIK
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577211601075404714.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Stories involving a Catholic, a Protestant and a Jew typically end with a punch line. We wish that were the case here, but what brings us together is no laughing matter: the threat now posed by government policy to that basic human freedom, religious liberty.
Last month the federal Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Affordable Care Act requires employers to pay for insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraception. What made the announcement especially troubling is that HHS specifically declined to exempt religious institutions that serve those outside their own faiths, such as hospitals and schools.
Coverage of this story has almost invariably been framed as a conflict between the federal government and the Catholic bishops. Zeroing in on the word "contraception," many commentators have taken delight in pointing to surveys about the use of contraceptives among Catholics, the message being that any infringement of religious freedom involves an idiosyncratic position that doesn't affect that many people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic Church's teaching on contraception (not to mention abortion and surgical sterilization) has been clear, consistent and public. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's decision would force Catholic institutions either to violate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church or abandon the health-care, education and social services they provide the needy. This is intolerable.
And while most evangelicals take a more permissive view of contraception, they share with Catholics the moral conviction that the taking of human life in utero, whether surgically or by abortifacient drugs, violates the basic human right to life. Evangelical nonprofits such as Prison Fellowship would therefore also have to choose between violating their consciences or paying fines that would ultimately destroy their ability to help the people they are committed to helping.
Even worse than the financial impact is the breach of faith represented by Ms. Sebelius's decision. Her notion of an "appropriate balance" between religious freedom and "increasing access" to "important preventive services" stands the First Amendment on its head.
In 1790, George Washington exchanged letters with Moses Seixas, the warden of the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I. Seixas praised the newly formed United States for "affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship." People who knew all too well what it meant to be deprived of the "invaluable rights of free Citizens" held religious liberty and freedom of conscience most dear.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
.In reply, Washington wrote that U.S. citizens had a "right to applaud themselves" for setting an example of "an enlarged and liberal policy" that enshrined freedom of conscience. He added that the ability of members of one faith to seek the benefit of all Americans is the foundation of America's civic strength.
We see evidence of that strength all around us: If a working mother's child needs to visit the emergency room, there's a good chance the hospital is a Catholic one. If an ex-offender needs help readjusting to life outside of prison, there's a good chance help will come from a Christian ministry like Prison Fellowship.
Yet instead of encouraging the different faith communities to continue their vital work for the good of all, the Obama administration is forcing them to make a choice: serving God and their neighbors according to the dictates of their respective faiths—or bending the knee to the dictates of the state.
For Jews, George Washington's letter has always been cherished. It embodies the promise extended by America not only to them, but to all citizens. That is why many in the Jewish community are alarmed to see the very religious freedom Washington praised centuries ago endangered by Washington's successor. "May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land," Washington wrote, "continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants."
At this critical moment, Americans of every faith, as guardians of their own freedom, must, in the words of the First Amendment, "petition the government for the redress of grievances." That's why over the past two years more than 500,000 people have signed the "Manhattan Declaration" in defense of religious liberty. They believe, as do we, that under no circumstances should people of faith violate their consciences and discard their most cherished religious beliefs in order to comply with a gravely unjust law.
That's something that this Catholic, this Protestant and this Jew are in perfect agreement about.
Cardinal Wuerl is the archbishop of Washington, D.C. Mr. Colson is the founder of Prison Fellowship and the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Rabbi Soloveichik is director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University and associate rabbi at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan.
-
The Gospel according to Obama
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: February 9
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gospel-according-to-obama/2012/02/09/gIQAngvW2Q_print.html
At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’ ”
Now, I’m no theologian, but I’m fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the tax man.
The Judeo-Christian tradition commands personal generosity as represented, for example, by the biblical injunction against retrieving any sheaf left behind while harvesting one’s own field. That is for the gleaners — “the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:10). Like Ruth in the field of Boaz. As far as I can tell, that charitable transaction involved no mediation by the IRS.
But no matter. Let’s assume that Obama has biblical authority for hiking the marginal tax rate exactly 4.6 points for couples making more than $250,000 (depending, of course, on the prevailing shekel-to-dollar exchange rate). Let’s stipulate that Obama’s prayer-breakfast invocation of religion as vindicating his politics was not, God forbid, crass, hypocritical, self-serving electioneering, but a sincere expression of a social-gospel Christianity that sees good works as central to the very concept of religiosity.
Fine. But this Gospel according to Obama has a rival — the newly revealed Gospel according to Sebelius, over which has erupted quite a contretemps. By some peculiar logic, it falls to the health and human services secretary to promulgate the definition of “religious” — for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.
Such exemptions are granted in grudging recognition that, whereas the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the state’s regulators, our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious institutions.
Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such “health care services” (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization and pharmacological abortion — to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.
Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.
And thus, the word came forth from Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required (a) to meet her definition of “religious” and thus (b) to qualify for a modicum of independence from newly enacted state control of American health care, under which the aforementioned Sebelius and her phalanx of experts determine everything — from who is to be covered, to which treatments are to be guaranteed free of charge.
Criterion 1: A “religious institution” must have “the inculcation of religious values as its purpose.” But that’s not the purpose of Catholic charities; it’s to give succor to the poor. That’s not the purpose of Catholic hospitals; it’s to give succor to the sick. Therefore, they don’t qualify as “religious” — and therefore can be required, among other things, to provide free morning-after abortifacients.
Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that “primarily employs” and “primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.” Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals — even Catholic schools — do not turn away Hindu or Jew.
Their vocation is universal, precisely the kind of universal love-thy-neighbor vocation that is the very definition of religiosity as celebrated by the Gospel of Obama. Yet according to the Gospel of Sebelius, these very same Catholic institutions are not religious at all — under the secularist assumption that religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are “social services” properly rendered up unto Caesar.
This all would be merely the story of contradictory theologies, except for this: Sebelius is Obama’s appointee. She works for him. These regulations were his call. Obama authored both gospels.
Therefore: To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they’re doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
________________________ ________________________ _____________
The sheer dishonesty and duplicity of thugbama should be appalling to even his most ardent supporters.
-
Paul Ryan: Contraception Issue A "Teachable Moment" In Progressive Philosophy
"The teachable moment here is when we elect a president who brings this progressive philosophy to bear to government, they decide how our rights are to be granted and given and organized. And if they clash with our first amendment right of religious freedom or something else then we know who wins in that exchange. This is much much bigger than about contraception or something like that, this is about religious freedom, first amendment rights, and how this progressive philosophy of fungible rights or a living, breathing constitution really clashes and collides with these core rights that we built our society and country around," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said to Laura Ingraham on her nationally syndicated radio program.
-
BREAKING: White House To Announce 'Accommodation' On Birth Control Rule
Gus Lubin | 1 hour ago | 1,915 | 28
It looks like Obama will cave on his stand against the Catholic Church.
ABC's Jake Tapper reports the White House will likely announce an attempt to accommodate religious groups on mandatory contraceptive coverage later today.
One source tells ABC the White House may offer a plan that lets religious groups opt out of contraceptive coverage as long as they inform employees beforehand.
As the Obama's war with the Catholic Church heated up, we've published popular op-eds in favor of and against the Church's stand on birth control.
Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Gus Lubin on Twitter.
Ask Gus A Question >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/breaking-white-house-to-announce-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-2012-2#ixzz1lz72xH7G
This communist ghetto creep has no idea what he started w this attack on the church.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
catholic church: raping little boys okay contraceptives: bad ::)
-
catholic church: raping little boys okay contraceptives: bad ::)
ITS NOT ABOUT THE CHURCH YOU DEMENTED FUCK!
-
BREAKING: White House To Announce 'Accommodation' On Birth Control Rule
Gus Lubin | 1 hour ago | 1,915 | 28
It looks like Obama will cave on his stand against the Catholic Church.
ABC's Jake Tapper reports the White House will likely announce an attempt to accommodate religious groups on mandatory contraceptive coverage later today.
One source tells ABC the White House may offer a plan that lets religious groups opt out of contraceptive coverage as long as they inform employees beforehand.
As the Obama's war with the Catholic Church heated up, we've published popular op-eds in favor of and against the Church's stand on birth control.
Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.
Follow Gus Lubin on Twitter.
Ask Gus A Question >
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/breaking-white-house-to-announce-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-2012-2#ixzz1lz72xH7G
This communist ghetto creep has no idea what he started w this attack on the church.
did you not post this
-
It just popped up on BI.
Obama taking on the Church = him going back to Kenya in November.
His far left communist fringe freak show base can whine all they like, at heart Obama wants a second term, not a fight on principles.
-
LOL @ the Obama meltdown on here.
-
now what are you going to do,obama gives in to the, it's ok to rape little boys club,but you still have your loser candidates. it a lose lose situation for you :D :D :D
-
LOL @ the Obama meltdown on here.
And the rest of the nation as well who is tired of the communist usurpers trampling on peoples' rights.
-
now what are you going to do,obama gives in to the, it's ok to rape little boys club,but you still have your loser candidates. it a lose lose situation for you :D :D :D
-
Obama boxed in on birth control
By: Glenn Thrush and Carrie Budoff Brown
February 10, 2012 04:26 AM EST
It was no secret inside the West Wing that Bill Daley, a Catholic with deep connections to the church hierarchy, vehemently opposed the administration’s proposal to require church-run hospitals and universities to give their employees free contraception.
But it was the way he pushed his case that aggravated some women on President Barack Obama’s senior staff, according to current and former administration officials. In early November, without consulting them, Daley set up a four-man Oval Office meeting for himself, Obama, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Vice President Joe Biden, who both shared the view that the policy would sink the president with Catholic voters.
Obama, a person close to him tells POLITICO, hadn’t made any final decision, hadn’t fully analyzed the dueling arguments, hadn’t expressed a strong policy preference, and felt “mildly uncomfortable” being put on the spot.
On Jan. 20 — after a protracted internal debate over the policy’s implications and lobbying from allies in the reproductive-rights community — Obama approved the mandate, to the horror of the conservative Dolan and even to more liberal Catholic allies such as Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.
From the standpoint of the 2012 campaign, the debate over birth control, the stuff of the 1960s, has opened a dangerous electoral schism for Democrats, pitting Obama’s base of female supporters against the church and a GOP presidential field all too eager to seize on a perceived assault on religious liberty.
But it has also exposed surprisingly acute ideological, religious and gender divisions within a White House that prides itself on pulling together as a cohesive unit after a major decision, however sloppy the deliberation. And the fissures may have contributed to the slow, seemingly disorganized response to the escalating attacks, amplifying the damage from a fight that would have been politically perilous in any case.
Signaling a desire to move beyond the controversy, the White House will announce a compromise as early as Friday designed to allay the concerns of religious organization, a senior administration official told POLITICO.
The Dolan meeting is just one example of the administration’s fumbling of an incendiary issue dating to the summer of 2011.
The session broke up after less than an hour, and Obama made no commitment to Dolan, a barrel-chested eminence in dark clerical vestments. The president, in sphinx mode, said he’d seek an accommodation amenable to all parties. That left the politically savvy prelate feeling “a little more at peace” about the outcome, which he duly reported to the media.
The benediction didn’t last long — and Dolan’s modest expression of optimism did a lot of political damage to the Obama White House. The archbishop, messaging as masterfully as any Washington consultant, created the expectation that Obama was, more or less, on his side. And that allowed Dolan — along with House Speaker John Boehner and GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — to cast the decision as a betrayal of Catholics.
“Think of this as Bill Daley’s parting gift to the White House,” a prominent abortion-rights activist who works closely with the administration told POLITICO.
Several of the president’s most influential female advisers — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett among them — were angry by what they viewed as a Daley power play and made their sentiment known to Obama, according to several people close the situation. Daley could not be reached for comment.
Yet casting the internal debate as a battle of the sexes doesn’t tell the whole story. Plenty of men in Obama’s orbit signed off, if not enthusiastically, on the decision. And at least one woman, Nancy-Ann DeParle, who helped quarterback the passage of the Affordable Care Act, opposed the policy. She argued that it would seriously undermine Catholic leaders who bucked the bishops by supporting the bill, including Sister Carol Keehan, head of the largest association of Catholic health-care centers.
In the end, Obama was motivated by personal conviction, aides said. He made the passionate case that several million women — many neither Catholic nor rich enough to pay $60 a month for contraception — should have access to free birth control, even while working for church-run institutions.
There’s little doubt that Obama’s decision also represented a concession to women’s groups, who were already angered by then-Rep. Bart Stupak’s anti-abortion amendment to the health care bill and by the administration’s decision to limit expanded availability of the morning-after pill.
He was also encouraged by the endorsement of senior adviser David Plouffe, a trusted political aide who reportedly reviewed private polling data and concluded that the vast majority of Catholic voters, who don’t adhere to the church’s dictates on birth control anyway, wouldn’t punish Obama for his decision.
But if this was Daley’s “parting gift” to the president, Obama helped gift-wrap it for his enemies by failing to make a coherent case for forcing the church to accept the mandate. In general, the White House seemed slow to realize the bishops, never shy about applying public pressure, would rally the faithful from the pulpit and through the pulp press.
Pete Rouse, counselor to the president and a supporter of the mandate, guided pro-choice activists from Planned Parenthood to downplay the decision, warning them against an instant backlash if they were seen “dancing in the end zone,” according to a Democrat with knowledge of the situation. (White House officials say Rouse wasn’t imposing a gag order, just offering a bit of prudent messaging advice.)
Three weeks into a political battle that shows no sign of abating, White House officials still have not owned their decision — or decisively cut bait.
Behind the scenes, senior White House officials are prevailing upon women’s groups to defend the decision, while Biden and others are publicly hinting at a yet-to-be articulated compromise that will silence the opposition.
On Thursday, Biden, citing a “lot of misunderstanding” about the rule, told a Cincinnati radio station that he is “determined to see that this gets worked out, and I believe we can work it out.”
On the other end of the spectrum from the Catholic groups are Democrats who support the policy and won’t remain silent if Obama cuts a face-saving deal they don’t like.
In the fall, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and other Democratic senators pressured Daley on a conference call, demanding that Obama support the policy, according to a staffer briefed on the interaction.
“It was an effort by a number of us in the Senate to express our belief about the importance of making sure that all women had access to contraceptives,” Shaheen said in an interview.
At an otherwise friendly closed-door meeting Wednesday with Senate Democrats, Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) — the sponsor of the amendment that precipitated the policy — confronted Obama campaign manager Jim Messina.
“Why aren’t we messaging this better?” Mikulski asked, according to a person in attendance. Her views were echoed by several others — and Messina responded by saying the campaign is mobilizing to deal with it.
But the bishops, along with a handful of other Catholic organizations, have been mobilized for months, working the media and the back channels of the White House.
Biden contacted a number of bishops, according to Bishop William Lori, chair of the conference’s Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty.
And then there was the Oval Office sit-down between Dolan and the president.
“I know it was taken by the conference as an opportunity at the highest level of the government to explain our concerns as reasonably and carefully as we could,” Lori said in an interview Thursday. “[Dolan] expressed measured hopefulness when it was over, but all of us understood that the proof would be in the pudding.”
Dolan’s hopes were apparently misplaced. “The needle didn’t move at all,” Lori said. “It could not be said that our concerns were addressed. It could not be said a balance was struck.”
On Daley’s role in arranging the meeting, he couldn’t say for sure, but added: “Bill Daley was involved in this, and we would have regarded him as helpful.”
Moreover, Obama may have discovered his most effective political opponent of 2012 in Dolan, a skilled tactician who is using his post as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to accuse the president of the United States of betrayal.
Dolan has a history of picking fights with high-profile Democrats, calling out Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for “misrepresenting” church doctrine on abortion. He said Notre Dame made “a big mistake” by inviting pro-abortion rights Obama to speak there in March 2009.
Once the contraception announcement was made Jan. 20, the Conference didn’t waste any time.
Dolan recorded a video message. The conference blasted out a press release calling the rule “literally unconscionable” and scoffed at a year grace period for religious employers to comply.
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Dolan said, in a statement that got wide pickup in the media.
Over the next week, the conference took action across multiple platforms. Dolan used the annual National Prayer Vigil for Life, which marks the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, to call on Catholics to “speak out for the protection of conscience rights and religious liberty.” Dolan published sharp op-eds in USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, while Lori, another conference leader, weighed in with a post on The Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog.
By the weekend of Jan. 28, dioceses across the country had gotten word from the Catholic leadership: Talk it up from the pulpit.
The Catholic leadership wrote a letter to “all the bishops of the United States summarizing the issue and suggesting the bishops ask their clergy” to read a letter to their congregations criticizing the ruling, Lori said.
“There has been a robust response,” he said.
That coordinated action quickly escalated the public relations fight. It was around that time, Lori said, that commentators “on the left and right seemed to think that even if they didn’t agree with the church’s teachings, the HHS mandate represented an overreach.”
The conference wants the administration to rescind not just the narrow religious exemption but the underlying rule requiring private employers to offer contraceptive coverage as part of their employee benefit plans — a position that leaves little room for compromise with the president.
On the other side of the issue, reproductive-rights advocates were caught off guard by the firestorm.
“We didn’t expect that to happen because one would really question whether this is the wisest way to conduct a discussion around health and whether this is really where the Republican Party wants to put its values,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice.
“If it was not an election year, I don’t think that this issue would have had the fuel to run as fast and as far as it was without being fueled by the GOP who really needed a bat to beat the president with,” O’Brien said.
He said there is a divide between the pundit class in Washington and the rest of the nation.
The issue has the attention of editorial boards, the Catholic hierarchy and cable talks shows, “but that doesn’t mean Middle America and ordinary citizens are riled up,” O’Brien said.
Lori said he could not predict how the standoff might end, but the conference will keep up the pressure.
“Many bishops around the country and many lay persons and fine commentators continue to speak out on it,” he said. “Right now it is a pretty fast-moving freight train.”
Manu Raju contributed to this report.
© 2012 POLITICO LLC
________________________ ________________________ ___________
OBAMA - DOMINATED BY WOMEN!
-
now what are you going to do,obama gives in to the, it's ok to rape little boys club,but you still have your loser candidates. it a lose lose situation for you :D :D :D
-
now what are you going to do,obama gives in to the, it's ok to rape little boys club,but you still have your loser candidates. it a lose lose situation for you :D :D :D
Its a lose lose for the nation asshole! Obama is a commie thug rat traitor regardless.
I hope the Church tells Thug-in-Chief to take his accomodation and rot in hell with it.
-
Chris Matthews: 'This May Come To Civil Disobedience'
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein
If President Obama didn't already see a sea of red flags, a thunderbolt by Chris Matthews this morning should surely inform him that he has badly misstepped with his decision to force Catholic institutions to provide services that violate their religious principles.
Appearing on Morning Joe, Matthews said that "even liberal Catholics are going to be proud" of Catholic leaders who stand up to Obama, and indeed that the Catholic response "may come to civil disobedience."
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
-
Baptist Leader: If Obama Mandate isn't changed, Christians will go to jail.
LiteSiteNews ^ | February 8, 2012 | Ben Johnson
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, February 8, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) — One of the most influential evangelical leaders in the United States says Christians should go to jail rather than comply with the Obama administration’s mandate to provide all contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their health care plans.
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), told LifeSiteNews.com "we will not comply" with the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ mandate requiring religious institutions to cover abortifacient products such as Plan B, Ella, and the IUD.
"We want the law changed, or else we’re going to write our letters from the Nashville jail, just like Dr. King wrote his from the Birmingham jail," Dr. Land said.
Dr. Land wrote an op-ed on Tuesday with Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research at ERLC, calling his fellow Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians throughout America to oppose any infringement on the First Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
-
why do you keep posting you already said he gave in,move on,go outside take a walk theres mor to life than this site
-
why do you keep posting you already said he gave in,move on,go outside take a walk theres mor to life than this site
Obama is not giving in on anything. Lucifer is not to be trusted on anything.
-
49% in Gallup today.
no offense, but anyone who is upset about obama/religion was already not going to vote for him.
-
Obama birth control policy divides Democrats
By Donna Cassata
Associated Press
Published: Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012 4:27 p.m. MST
WASHINGTON — Democrats are deeply divided over President Barack Obama's new rule that religious schools and hospitals must provide insurance for free birth control to their employees amid fresh signs that the administration was scrambling for a way out.
"This is not only unacceptable, it is un-American," says Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a Catholic who faces re-election in November in a state where Wednesday nights are reserved for church services.
Another Catholic senator, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, has pleaded with the administration "to correct this decision which will erode the conscience rights" that have been protected for decades. His opposition echoes the criticism of his bishop in Scranton, Rev. Joseph C. Bambera.
Several Democrats, including Senate candidate Tim Kaine in Virginia and Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, have been outspoken in assailing the recently announced administration mandate that has angered religious groups and unified Republicans in protest. In a reflection of the party split, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Thursday blocked a GOP effort to debate an amendment on religious freedom.
A day earlier, liberal female senators thanked Obama for the new policy during a closed-door retreat.
"We're here to stand up for the women of America who deserve to have access to free preventive care through their health insurance," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said later at a news conference.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday promised a fierce debate on women's rights if Republicans tried to repeal the policy.
Even though church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued last month in regulations under Obama's health care overhaul, the outcry has been loud and fierce. Facing intense pressure, the White House indicated this week that it is trying to come up with a compromise.
Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, said in a radio interview Thursday that "there is going to be a significant attempt to work this out and there is time to do that." He said the one-year grace period is "to make sure that we do not force the Catholic Church to do something that they fundamentally think is inconsistent with their religious beliefs."
He spoke with Bill Cunningham of 700 WLW in Cincinnati.
The party break over the contentious issue could reverberate in an election year, with implications not only for Obama in battleground states with significant numbers of Catholic working-class voters such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, but also for Democrats in congressional races. The political upside for Casey or Manchin is a fresh opportunity to show their independence from the president; the political downside is potentially pushing too far on a matter that resonates with female voters critical to the Democrats' prospects in November.
In a show of defiance, Manchin joined forces with Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida on Thursday in introducing legislation to expand the religious exemption and undo the Obama policy.
"I don't know why the federal government jumped in at the level they did," Manchin said.
Manchin has been in touch with his bishop, Rev. Michael Bransfield, of the diocese for Wheeling and Charleston, who has called the rule "a radical break with the tradition of religious liberty and respect for conscience rights."
More than 150 Catholic cardinals and bishops throughout the country have been relentless in assailing the policy, with many of their letters on the policy sent to parishioners or read aloud at Sunday Masses.
Ramping up the pressure, a worldwide Catholic broadcasting network based in Alabama filed a lawsuit Thursday against the administration over the policy. The suit, filed by the nonprofit EWTN Global Catholic Network, claims the rules are unconstitutional because they would require the broadcaster to violate church principles on the sanctity of life.
"This is a moment when EWTN, as a Catholic organization, has to step up and say that enough is enough," said Michael Warsaw, the network's president. "Our hope is that our lawsuit does just that."
Among Democrats, Manchin and Casey are in line with their church's leaders and holding fast to their religious beliefs. Yet in West Virginia, the senator still has faced criticism from the Republican Party on the issue.
Frustration among some Democrats dates to early December when Casey, Manchin and several other moderate House and Senate lawmakers participated in a conference call with senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. The lawmakers voiced their reservations but made no headway with Jarrett, who thanked them for their opinions, according to congressional aides who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Internally at the White House, Biden, then-Chief of Staff Bill Daley and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, all Catholics, raised concerns about how the administration proceeded on the policy. On the other side, senior White House advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle, Pete Rouse and David Plouffe argued for the need to ensure coverage for all without exception, as a matter of women's health and fairness.
Three Democratic senators — Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Patty Murray of Washington state and Boxer — pressed for making birth control coverage widely available.
The discussions were described by administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.
Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Erica Werner, Jim Kuhnhenn and Alan Fram in Washington and Jay Reeves in Birmingham, Ala., contributed to this report.
-
49% in Gallup today.
no offense, but anyone who is upset about obama/religion was already not going to vote for him.
ITS NOT ABOUT RELIGION ONLY DOUCHEBAG! And again - Ron Paul and you disagree on this.
-
The Catholic Tribe Closes Ranks Against Obama's Intrusion
Townhall.com ^ | February 10, 2012 | Maggie Gallagher
President Obama's attack on Catholic organizations has managed to do what the bishops have been unable to do, as Peggy Noonan points out: Unite the Catholic right and the Catholic left.
Obama's decision to use Obamacare to force Catholic hospitals, schools, universities and charities to fund abortion pills, contraception and sterilization constitutes a deep betrayal of his staunch allies on the Catholic left.
They went out on a limb for Obama and Obamacare, and he has cut off that limb and left them bereft.
Professor Doug Kmiec supported Obama and even wrote a book to justify how a pro-life Catholic could support a pro-choice president (and was rewarded with the plum job of ambassador to Malta). Kmiec has just written an open letter of rebuke to Barack Obama, charging he "put the cold calculus of politics above faith and freedom." "Where is the common good, sir, in not making room for the great Catholic traditions of education, health care and meeting the needs of the least among us?" Kmiec demanded.
The Rev. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, took heat from many Catholics in 2009 for giving President Obama an award and a speaking platform at a university named "Our Lady"; he now scolds the president's "unnecessary government intervention" that puts Notre Dame in the "untenable position" of dropping coverage for 5,229 employees.
Even Chris Matthews on MSNBC is calling for a retreat.
And poor Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association! She broke openly with the bishops to endorse Obamacare, promising it would not lead to the funding of abortions. She never imagined that, much worse, it would lead to requiring Catholic organizations to dispense contraceptives and abortifacients (the morning-after pill) on demand. She called the new regulations a "jolt."
Catholic reaction may well have jolted Sen. Rick Santorum back into contention for the GOP nomination. In last Tuesday's contests, he ran 10 points ahead of the last pre-election PPP poll, indicating a sudden intensity in the turnout for him. Pundits are focusing on the evangelical vote, but Santorum ran surprisingly well in heavily Catholic counties surrounding Minneapolis/St. Paul. He was on fire in his victory speech: President Obama has gone after the liberty of "just a small group of Americans," he said incredulously, "just Catholics in America."
Obama gravely miscalculated. He thought the new Health and Human Services regulations would become a battle over contraception -- politically speaking, a battle he could win. As a Protestant, he forgot the structure of Catholicism is essentially clannish; we may complain about our bishops, but that doesn't mean we want the president of the United States to push them -- or us -- around. The church has been around for 2,000 years, we know it does things funny, and we don't want outsiders interfering with our faith.
President Obama will pay a price, among swing Catholic voters and Latino Catholics, for his totally unnecessary aggression against carefully crafted conscience compromises.
How do Democrats defend the indefensible? I was on "MSNBC Live" with Thomas Roberts this week, debating former Democratic operative Karen Finney, who tried to say that if the Catholic Chur ch opens up "businesses," it has to accept government rules. I interrupted her to say, "These are nonprofits, charities, schools, not businesses." She compounded matters by suggesting the nonprofit tax-exempt status meant these Catholic institutions owe the government. Excuse me, these are Catholic charitable institutions that serve the poor and needy; they were built with love and sacrifice, large and small, over many years by Catholics acting out of our faith, and we are proud of them. Regardless of our political position, we do not stand by and see them attacked lightly.
Even former Democratic Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pa., who cast a crucial vote in favor of Obamacare in 2010, said recently that she would have never voted for the health care bill if she had known Obamacare would force Catholic hospitals and charities to provide contraception and abortion pills.
Mitt Romney was in something of the same position with regard to Romneycare in Massachusetts. He didn't know it would lead to Catholic hospitals being ordered to give abortifacients to rape victims, and when he found out he opposed it, but without success.
The lesson for Republicans ought to be: When you turn over large sectors of the economy to government control, bad things will happen.
The lesson for Democrats? Don't attack the Catholic clan -- it's bad morals, bad form and bad politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Who cares what the church thinks? It was Gods Will that Obama became POTUS. They need to suck it up and follow along. :D
Someone is on a Cut And Past mission to support their Occupy Getbig agenda.
-
Who cares what the church thinks? It was Gods Will that Obama became POTUS. They need to suck it up and follow along. :D
Someone is on a Cut And Past mission to support their Occupy Getbig agenda.
Who cares what the church thinks? Its not about the church you gay pedo stalking freak.
-
every thing you post is about the church
-
every thing you post is about the church
WHY SHOULD THE GOVT BE MAKING THESE MANDATES AND CHOICES IN THE FIRST PLACE? I THOUGHT YOU LEFTISTS WERE PRO CHOICE?
-
Gay projections = poor crybaby is getting emotional in his little meltdown.
I think he keeps talking about the church because the ass raping he has been given on this thread reminds him of the anal alter boy game he liked to play when he was little.
-
Hilarious how morons like blacken and the more idiotic delusional retards like lurkerthefag try to treat this issue as something trivial. You have blacken trying to deflect by pointing out that child abuse was commited by priests and you have lurkerthestalker strangely calling this an Obama meltdown. Seems like he gets very sensitive when someone criticizes Obama. Such are homos.
Freedom of religion, idiots. That is what is at stake here. It's alarming that none of you nitwits understand that. It doesn't matter if it's a school or a hospital. If it was built and supported by a religious organization, it's still a part of that religious entity. That is a fact. That is why Sebelius had to amend the bill and put HER definition of a "religious organization". I know a lot of you morons don't believe in God but that still doesn't give you, nor the government the right to violate that constitutional right.
-
Gay projections = poor crybaby is getting emotional in his little meltdown.
I think he keeps talking about the church because the ass raping he has been given on this thread reminds him of the anal alter boy game he liked to play when he was little.
But, you are gay. That is why you hate the church. Just stating the facts, assmuncher.
-
Hilarious how morons like blacken and the more idiotic delusional retards like lurkerthefag try to treat this issue as something trivial. You have blacken trying to deflect by pointing out that child abuse was commited by priests and you have lurkerthestalker strangely calling this an Obama meltdown. Seems like he gets very sensitive when someone criticizes Obama. Such are homos.
Freedom of religion, idiots. That is what is at stake here. It's alarming that none of you nitwits understand that. It doesn't matter if it's a school or a hospital. If it was built and supported by a religious organization, it's still a part of that religious entity. That is a fact. That is why Sebelius had to amend the bill and put HER definition of a "religious organization". I know a lot of you morons don't believe in God but that still doesn't give you, nor the government the right to violate that constitutional right.
this is for getbig's idiot bible thumper
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46320611
-
Hey blacken - when the next GOP President and his hack at HHS start mandating all sorts of shit - how will you react?
-
i know i won't post 50+ post on the same topic ;D
-
No, White House Not "Compromising" On Birth Control Mandate
Townhall.com ^ | February 10, 2012 | Katie Pavlich
Later today President Obama is expected to announce a "compromise" that allows religious employers to opt out of paying for providing birth control to women, but will still be required to provide contraception. What this means is, insurance companies will pick up the tab for contraception, but religious employers are still required to provide contraception through insurance plans to their employees, despite the move being against religious beliefs. ABC's Jake Tapper has more:
With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.
White House officials have discussed the state law in Hawaii, where religious groups are allowed to opt out of coverage that includes birth control, as long as employees are given information whether such coverage can be obtained. But this accommodation would not go that far.
This announcement would not go that far. Sources say it will involve health insurance companies helping to provide the coverage, since it’s actually cheaper for these companies to offer the coverage.
It look as if the "compromise" isn't going to change much at all:
Whether the new language will accomplish this overtly political goal remains unclear. Two senior officials cautioned that the underlying substance of the contraceptive-coverage regulation, due to take full effect in the summer of 2013, remains unclear in the public mind and any new approach may not mollify critics in the Catholic hierarchy or on the GOP campaign trail. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the announcement.
-
But, you are gay. That is why you hate the church. Just stating the facts, assmuncher.
Sorry cupcake. I know you want me to be, but that is just your own little fantasies there. Whether it comes from being a Christian or being a Republican only you can say.
Science has proven as fact the direct effects of incest and inbreeding in producing retardation and other birth defects in the offspring. God has populated this planet (that you claim Jesus created) in this universe (that you claim Jesus created) not once, but TWICE by direct methods of incest and inbreeding.
Thanks for posting and lending proof to that retardario.
-
this is for getbig's idiot bible thumper
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46320611
I am not a bible thumper.
What does the past history of child molestation of the church and your perception of me as a "bible thumper" have to do with the issue at hand? Answer: Nothing.
You are a very slow learner, Einstein. Try to keep up with the main topic. Obama is violating the freedom of religion. Try to defend him on this issue without resorting to the retarded liberal tactic of diversion, skippy.
-
i know i won't post 50+ post on the same topic ;D
If you mean posting anything that is worth a damn, then you are right.
-
this is for getbig's idiot bible thumper
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46320611
I don't think Retardario qualifies as a bible thumper. Most bible thumpers have at least read the bible. I do believe the only exposure he has had to the bible is when his parents beat him over the head with it trying to chase the homosexual devil out of him.
Anyone who has actually read the Bible - even parts of it - would not believe :
- That someone can be half a religion.
- That Jesus created Earth
- That Jesus created the universe
Retardario is one of those "special" cases who calls himself a christian and yet doesn't know jack shit about the fairy tale or it's history.
-
retardario
I am not a bible thumper.
What does the past history of child molestation of the church and your perception of me as a "bible thumper" have to do with the issue at hand? Answer: Nothing.
You are a very slow learner, Einstein. Try to keep up with the main topic. Obama is violating the freedom of religion. Try to defend him on this issue without resorting to the retarded liberal tactic of diversion, skippy.
i think david boies knows a bit more than our resident bible thumper
-
I am not a bible thumper.
What does the past history of child molestation of the church and your perception of me as a "bible thumper" have to do with the issue at hand? Answer: Nothing.
You are a very slow learner, Einstein. Try to keep up with the main topic. Obama is violating the freedom of religion. Try to defend him on this issue without resorting to the retarded liberal tactic of diversion, skippy.
Just as I said. You are not a bible thumper. You are simply nothing more than a product of that Inbreeding Program God used to create his children.
Good job. And people wonder why it's so easy to shoot religious nuts down so fast? It's God's fault for impairing them from connecting with logic, common sense, self esteem, and an IQ over room temp. Carry on pussy wart.
-
WHY SHOULD ANY BE EMPLOYER BE FORCED TO OFFER ANYTHING AT ALL?
-
wait a minute, just wait.
the church pays no taxes. They want to use our money to pay for a plan thats benefits them and you guys think they should decide whatever they want? what the majority gets to force there ideals on the minority, if even one girl wants birth control and they remove it from there services then they cannot ethically do it. They aren't paying for shit, they are not operating like a fucking jewish deli you incredible morons. The deli owner pays taxes and thus has a say, he also can pay for the private health insurance and offer what he likes. The gov could not force him to do shit because he pays his share and its private. The church pays no taxes and thinks it can dictate policy while also benefiting from it? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.
this is not about religious freedom, its about of lazy cocksuckers that want there cake and to eat it too. Seriously, he is not attacking their religion he is attacking there right to dictate things that they have no say in, wether they want to evoke the religious card matters not to me, do it all you want fuckers, pay taxes then you can have a say. Better yet use that tax free money and buy your own, that seems like a jewish deli, if the gov then stepped in a said no you have to have this despite them using there own money i would have issue. But again the gov should be able to, its tax free money, why the fuck are they living the fucking commie life again?
i have no right to infringe upon there rights, but getting a free program, while not paying taxes and then having the majority dominate teh minority in the church is all bullshit, there is an attack on freedom alright and its the fucking church asking for special treatment and you fucks supporting it.
-
Again - the govt should not have the authiority to dictate my fucking choices!
Why can't I choose to buy what I want w/o the permission of King Obama?
And you call me the fascist? LOL. You pieces of garbage are slaves begging the King for crumbs.
-
BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate
by Kathleen Gilbert
Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 EST
Comments (4)
WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.
The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.”
“The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”
In a statement released today, the White House said, “Under the new policy announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works.”
“If a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.”
The birth control rule announced last summer was intended to force virtually all employers to cover sterilizations and contraception, including abortifacient drugs such as ella, a sister drug to RU-486. The religious employer exemption essentially applied only to houses of worship, creating an uproar in the Catholic community as hospitals, schools, and charities would have been forced to pay for the drugs. The furor only grew stronger when the administration announced last month that the concerned religious organizations would be given an extra year to comply.
President Obama reiterated the statement in a press conference this afternoon, saying that “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out” to women employed by such institutions to offer birth control “without copays, without hassles.”
The new rule is reportedly similar to coverage laws in Hawaii that allow employers with religious objections not to directly pay for contraception, but instead to direct employees on how to conveniently access all such drugs and procedures.
In an email to the Weekly Standard, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said this week that such an “adjustment” would be not only inadequate, but even worse than the current mandate.
“It would be no improvement to say: ‘Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic,’ he wrote.
Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League also told LifeSiteNews.com that the new rule amounted to a “shell game.” “At the end of the day, religious employers are still required to provide insurance plans that offer free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients in violation of their moral tenets,” he said.
The country’s Catholic bishops have not yet responded to the White House’s statement. However, both Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association (CHA) have expressed satisfaction with the new plan.
.The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed,” said Sr. Carol Keehan of CHA. Keehan and her organization are perhaps best known for flouting the position of the Catholic bishops during the fight over Obama’s health care reform, throwing their weight behind the bill despite the opposition of the U.S. bishops over concerns the bill would increase abortion funding. Keehan was personally singled out by former USCCB President Cardinal Francis George for condemnation for her role in helping pass the health reform law.
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards issued a statement, saying: “In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women.s health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.
“We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman.s ability to access these critical birth control benefits. However we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy, which does not compromise the essential principles of access to care.”
The pro-abortion news source, RH Reality Check, lauded the news, noting that the rule is convenient because women would not have to purchase a separate rider for the contraception coverage.
Developing…
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/page_the_administration_will_have_to_backtrack_on_contraception_rule.html
Obama was warned by many people not to do this. Now he should reap the worldwind of his horrible tyrannical bs.
-
Again - the govt should not have the authiority to dictate my fucking choices!
Why can't I choose to buy what I want w/o the permission of King Obama?
And you call me the fascist? LOL. You pieces of garbage are slaves begging the King for crumbs.
who is telling them they have to purchase this free fucking program? lol.
-
who is telling them they have to purchase this free fucking program? lol.
You really are stupid. Nothing is free moron.
-
Obama “accommodation”: Insurers must cover contraception at no cost to … anyone?
Hotair ^ | 02/10/2012 | Ed Morrissey
Today, the Obama administration hastily called a press conference to announce a change to its HHS mandate for employers to cover contraception at no cost, including religious organizations whose doctrines oppose contraception and abortifacients. Instead of religious organizations footing the bill directly, the revised "accommodation" now says that insurers must cover the costs, which changes --- nothing:
The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.
Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug
According to Obama administration officials on a conference call this morning, a woman’s insurance company “will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it.”
The birth control and abortion-causing drugs will simply be “part of the bundle of services that all insurance companies are required to offer,” White House officials said.
So these employers will still have to provide the health insurance, and the health insurance must cover the contraception and abortifacients. The White House apparently wants t pretend that the funds for these outlays will come off of the Unobtanium Tree, where insurers find money to cover all mandates. This exposes once again a stunning ignorance of risk pools and how costs are passed along to consumers.
Let’s just take this one step at a time. Where do insurers get money to pay claims? They collect premiums and co-pays from the insured group or risk pool. No matter what the Obama administration wants to say now, the money that will cover those contraception costs will come from the religious organizations that must now by law buy that insurance and pay those premiums. Their religious doctrines have long-standing prohibitions against participating in contraception and abortion, and nothing in this “accommodation” changes the fact that the government is now forcing them to both fund and facilitate access to products and services that offend their practice of religion.
Basically, the Obama administration told religious organizations to stop complaining and get in line. This “accommodation” only attempts to accommodate Obama’s political standing and nothing more.
-
ITS NOT ABOUT RELIGION ONLY DOUCHEBAG! And again - Ron Paul and you disagree on this.
lol... how the hell do you ever know where i stand on this issue.
in fact, what IS this issue? I get so bored when the right responds to a positive jobs report with a 'culture war' hotbutton issue like abortion.
so what's the issue, so that i can tell you where i stand, before you continue to assume?
-
lol... how the hell do you ever know where i stand on this issue.
in fact, what IS this issue? I get so bored when the right responds to a positive jobs report with a 'culture war' hotbutton issue like abortion.
so what's the issue, so that i can tell you where i stand, before you continue to assume?
The issue is whether the Federal Govt can mandate employers provide certain benefits to employees that it does not want to for whatever reason.
AS BOTH AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS AN EMPLOYER - WHY CANT I HAVE THE CHOICE OF WHAT BENEFITS TO OFFER EMPLOYEES AND GIVE THEM THE CHOICE TO TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT?
-
what benefits are the govt trying to mandate companies have to give their workers?
what is the cost to businesses, and benefits to society?
-
what benefits are the govt trying to mandate companies have to give their workers?
what is the cost to businesses, and benefits to society?
Have you not been paying attention the last three fucking years? And who gives a damn about "benefits to society"?
We are supposed to have freedom correct? Why cant I have the choice and freedom to not participate in this bullshit?
-
Have you not been paying attention the last three fucking years? And who gives a damn about "benefits to society"?
We are supposed to have freedom correct? Why cant I have the choice and freedom to not participate in this bullshit?
I don't understand what it happening - something about birth control? Sorry, this topic bores the fck out of me. Please bring me up to speed. Instead of being intentionally vague, unless you also don't understand the issue.
what are ppl bitching about? what is obama's response?
you say "certain benefits to employees" - WTF does that mean? I hear shit like 'war on religion!' on the news and i turn that drama queen shit off.
please explain to me what ppl are bitching about - thanks.
-
I don't understand what it happening - something about birth control? Sorry, this topic bores the fck out of me. Please bring me up to speed. Instead of being intentionally vague, unless you also don't understand the issue.
what are ppl bitching about? what is obama's response?
you say "certain benefits to employees" - WTF does that mean? I hear shit like 'war on religion!' on the news and i turn that drama queen shit off.
please explain to me what ppl are bitching about - thanks.
There is a war on women conducted by the church and approved by Republicunts. That's it in a nutshell.
-
There is a war on women conducted by the church and approved by Republicunts. That's it in a nutshell.
LOL. You are a freaking leftist drone arnt you? Why shouldnt I have the right to chose what type of insurance coverage I want?
You are "pro choice" right?
-
Too much birth control = not enough alter boys. If alter boys were getting pregnant you would see a completely different story at hand. But instead you got the Christian Taliban crying over bullshit. Just like you crytalian.
-
The catch in Obama’s contraceptives compromise
By Sarah Kliff, Updated: Friday, February 10, 11:54 AM
Andrew Harrer Bloomberg The White House has given reporters the rundown on the “accommodations” that President Obama will announce on the health reform law’s requirements for hospitals run by faith-based groups to cover the costs of employees’ contraceptives. Here’s how it works.
As it stands, church-run hospitals are required to cover contraceptives at no cost to employees. A slew of Catholic groups have opposed that requirement. So on Friday, the White House rolled out a new rule, where insurance companies, rather than faith-based agencies, will offer birth-control coverage directly to these employees and foot the bill.
“If a charity, hospital or another organization has an objection to the policy going forward, insurance companies will be required to reach out to directly offer contraceptive care free of charge,” one administration official explained.
Four states - - New York, Missouri, Hawaii and West Virginia -- have contraceptive mandates with similar riders. The big difference, however, is that in those states the individual employees pick up the tab for the contraceptives rather than the insurance company.
The administration thinks this is a good deal for insurance companies since the economics tend to work in their favor. Numerous studies have shown that covering contraceptives is revenue-neutral, as such preventive measures can lower the rate of pregnancies down the line. Pregnancy and childbirth coverage is, of course, much more expensive.
“Contraceptives save a lot of money,” a senior administration official argued.
The catch here is that there’s a difference between “revenue neutral” and “free.” By one report’s measure, it costs about $21.40 to add birth control, IUDs and other contraceptives to an insurance plan. Those costs may be offset by a reduction in pregnancies. But unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere.
Where will it come from, since neither employers nor employees will be paying for these contraceptives? That leaves the insurers, whose revenues come from the premiums that subscribers pay them. It’s difficult to see how insurance companies would avoid using premiums to cover the costs of contraceptives. They could, perhaps, use premiums from non-religious employers. Those businesses wouldn’t likely object on faith-based grounds, but they probably wouldn’t be keen on footing the bill for people who aren’t on their payrolls.
This new rule has done the White House some political good. It has already won over Catholic Health Organization’s Carol Keehan, a supporter of health reform supporter who had opposed the initial rule. It is not, however, expected to win over the Catholic bishops, who will likely worry that their premiums will implicitly go to offset the costs of birth control. Republican legislators, meanwhile, have already started attacking the White House’s accommodation.
© The Washington Post Company
-
LOL. You are a freaking leftist drone arnt you? Why shouldnt I have the right to chose what type of insurance coverage I want?
You are "pro choice" right?
you stupid guy lol. Best troll ever.
the church are not paying for the health coverage, why should they have a choice, the government is paying for it for them, they are welfare queens. Are you suggesting that welfare recipients get to pick and choose what benefits to have despite getting it for free?
this is the fucking same situation the church is in yet you are defending these idiots. The government are the ones paying for the health care plan as such they are the employer you stupid fuck, so yes you are right the employers can give the employees (the church) whatever fucking plan they like. They can go buy another if they like.
-
The catch in Obama’s contraceptives compromise
By Sarah Kliff, Updated: Friday, February 10, 11:54 AM
Andrew Harrer Bloomberg The White House has given reporters the rundown on the “accommodations” that President Obama will announce on the health reform law’s requirements for hospitals run by faith-based groups to cover the costs of employees’ contraceptives. Here’s how it works.
As it stands, church-run hospitals are required to cover contraceptives at no cost to employees. A slew of Catholic groups have opposed that requirement. So on Friday, the White House rolled out a new rule, where insurance companies, rather than faith-based agencies, will offer birth-control coverage directly to these employees and foot the bill.
“If a charity, hospital or another organization has an objection to the policy going forward, insurance companies will be required to reach out to directly offer contraceptive care free of charge,” one administration official explained.
Four states - - New York, Missouri, Hawaii and West Virginia -- have contraceptive mandates with similar riders. The big difference, however, is that in those states the individual employees pick up the tab for the contraceptives rather than the insurance company.
The administration thinks this is a good deal for insurance companies since the economics tend to work in their favor. Numerous studies have shown that covering contraceptives is revenue-neutral, as such preventive measures can lower the rate of pregnancies down the line. Pregnancy and childbirth coverage is, of course, much more expensive.
“Contraceptives save a lot of money,” a senior administration official argued.
The catch here is that there’s a difference between “revenue neutral” and “free.” By one report’s measure, it costs about $21.40 to add birth control, IUDs and other contraceptives to an insurance plan. Those costs may be offset by a reduction in pregnancies. But unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere.
Where will it come from, since neither employers nor employees will be paying for these contraceptives? That leaves the insurers, whose revenues come from the premiums that subscribers pay them. It’s difficult to see how insurance companies would avoid using premiums to cover the costs of contraceptives. They could, perhaps, use premiums from non-religious employers. Those businesses wouldn’t likely object on faith-based grounds, but they probably wouldn’t be keen on footing the bill for people who aren’t on their payrolls.
This new rule has done the White House some political good. It has already won over Catholic Health Organization’s Carol Keehan, a supporter of health reform supporter who had opposed the initial rule. It is not, however, expected to win over the Catholic bishops, who will likely worry that their premiums will implicitly go to offset the costs of birth control. Republican legislators, meanwhile, have already started attacking the White House’s accommodation.
© The Washington Post Company
HOW DARE THEY ASK CHURCH PEOPLE TO PAY THE BILL, THEY SHOULD GET IT FROM OUR TAX DOLLARS THEY DONT CONTRIBUTE TO.
i like 33 the dedication to this trolling art is really something like art. Seriously what troll on the internets can post like this non-stop, just all day long, what do you do?
-
you stupid #### lol. Best troll ever.
the church are not paying for the health coverage, why should they have a choice, the government is paying for it for them, they are welfare queens. Are you suggesting that welfare recipients get to pick and choose what benefits to have despite getting it for free?
this is the fucking same situation the church is in yet you are defending these idiots. The government are the ones paying for the health care plan as such they are the employer you stupid fuck, so yes you are right the employers can give the employees (the church) whatever fucking plan they like. They can go buy another if they like.
Sorry. But common sense has the same effect on him that sunlight has on vampires. You can't reason with delusional jack asses like him.
All you can do is sit back and watch the little meltdown progress.
-
you stupid #### lol. Best troll ever.
the church are not paying for the health coverage, why should they have a choice, the government is paying for it for them, they are welfare queens. Are you suggesting that welfare recipients get to pick and choose what benefits to have despite getting it for free?
this is the fucking same situation the church is in yet you are defending these idiots. The government are the ones paying for the health care plan as such they are the employer you stupid fuck, so yes you are right the employers can give the employees (the church) whatever fucking plan they like. They can go buy another if they like.
False - the govt is not allowing any choices.
-
So they are forcing church members to take birth control? If you don't swallow your tablet every day you get kicked out of church? Is that what the gov't is doing?
-
So they are forcing church members to take birth control? If you don't swallow your tablet every day you get kicked out of church? Is that what the gov't is doing?
ITS NOT ABOUT THE CHURCH MORON!
Again - why should obama have the authority to dictate what employers offer employees?
-
But you are crying about the church. You are a stupid little fuck aren't you.
LOL @ this continuing meltdown. You know, Sunday I am going a cruise for a week. I am going to be chilling out, laying by the pool, hiking the rain forest and being waited on hand and foot. What are you going to be doing those 7 days? Melting down on the internet 24/7 with 20,000 posts? Yeah... that would be the best guess.
-
The Obamacare Decree Isn’t Merely an Affront to Religious Liberty
Jeffrey H. Anderson
February 10, 2012 9:01 AM
There has been an extraordinary backlash to the Obama administration’s recent decree that, under Obamacare, all new private health plans must cover (among many other things) the birth control pill, the morning-after pill, and the abortion drug ella — and must cover them “free of charge” (thereby ensuring higher premiums). But the response has largely been to view this as an unfortunate side effect of Obamacare, as one instance in which Obamacare — or the decrees issued under its authority — may need to be tweaked. In truth, however, this is the essence of Obamacare: centralized power, politicized medicine, and senseless mandates that micromanage the lives of free citizens.
Likewise, the focus has been on Catholic organizations, whose teachings against the use of contraception and abortifacients would have to yield in practice to the teachings of the Obama administration. Such organizations would be banned from even offering — and their employees therefore prevented from freely choosing — health plans that don’t include “complimentary” coverage of birth control pills, morning-after pills, and ella. So much for the Obama administration’s alleged commitment to “choice” in this realm.
But this issue isn’t confined to the liberty of the Catholic Church or even to religious liberty more broadly; it affects the liberty of every American. It isn’t about the freedom to worship; it’s about the freedom to follow one’s own moral convictions, whether those convictions are religiously rooted or not. It’s about whether every American should be at liberty to decide what sort of health insurance he or she wants to buy, or whether Kathleen Sebelius — and hence Obama — should be empowered to decide what sort of health insurance 300 million citizens will be forced to buy.
Not only is the decree issued by Sebelius (Obama’s secretary of Health and Human Services) wrong on at least seven levels, but if the Obama administration were to reverse course and subsequently decree that Catholic and other religious organizations will henceforth be granted an exception, this would merely confirm the politicized nature of the process. It would merely show that such groups have enough clout to secure an exception to the rule.
And the rule is appalling. Why is the federal government telling us what items our health plans have to cover and which of those items should or shouldn’t involve copays? It’s a ludicrous and almost comical overreach of centralized power. The next thing you know, the federal government will be telling us what kinds of light bulbs we have to buy. (You laugh, but it could happen.)
In truth, the problem isn’t really (or at least centrally) that the Obamacare decree would prohibit religious organizations from offering health plans that don’t provide free access to the birth control pill, the morning-after pill, and ella. The problem is that the decree would prohibit all civil associations and private businesses from offering — and therefore all Americans from freely choosing — plans that don’t provide “free” access to such “preventive medicine.” Otherwise stated, it would preclude Americans from choosing plans that are different from those that Sebelius and Obama would choose on their behalf.
As the decree indicates, the Obama administration considers civil associations and private businesses (whether religious or not) to be entities that can, and should, be made to do its bidding. As Yuval Levin writes at National Review Online,
“[W]hat is at issue…is not just the question of religious liberty but the question of non-governmental institutions in a free society. Does civil society consist of a set of institutions that help the government achieve its purposes as [the government] defines them…or does civil society consist of an assortment of efforts by citizens to band together in pursuit of mutual aims and goods as they understand them? Is [civil society] an extension of the state or of the community? In this arena, as in a great many others, the administration is clearly determined to see civil society as merely an extension of the state.”
Levin concludes that “the question on the table is really [about] the basic character of our society.”
Some 175 years before Obamacare, Alexis de Tocqueville expressed the view that freely formed private associations are crucial extensions of the community (not of the state). Perhaps the keenest observer of American society, Tocqueville wrote,
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious….
“…If men living in democratic countries…never acquired the habit of forming associations in ordinary life, civilization itself would be endangered….
“…No sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its political sphere…than it exercises, even unintentionally, an insupportable tyranny….t is never easy to discriminate between its advice and its commands....Governments, therefore, should not be the only active powers; associations ought, in democratic nations, to stand in lieu of those powerful private [aristocratic] individuals whom the equality of conditions has swept away….
“…In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made.”
In other words, Obamacare is not only undermining Americans’ liberty directly. It is also endangering the independence of the freely formed associations that unite Americans and serve as the backbone of a vibrant republic — and which also form barriers against excessive governmental power.
We need to repeal Obamacare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!
Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.
Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-decree-isn-t-merely-affront-religious-liberty_626553.html
-
Don't Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!
by Jimmy Akin Friday, February 10, 2012 3:22 PM Comments (17)
Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience!
Do not be suckered by the “accommodation” announced today by President Obama and spokeswoman Kathleen Sebelius!
Under the guise of making room for religious conscience, the President has actually made the policy worse—far worse.
Here’s how . . .
The new policy mandates that insurance companies offer free sterilization, contraception, and abortion-causing drugs as part of their policies. According to President Obama himself:
Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.
Got that?
That’s worse than before.
Under the previous evil policy if you worked for an exempt organization—say, a church—then your employer could offer you an insurance plan that did not include sterilization, contraception, and abortion drugs.
Now there will be no such plans.
Remember that “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it” promise? It was a lie then, but it’s even more of a lie now. Whether you like it or not, your healthcare plan must be modified to include sterilization, contraception, and abortion drugs.
So the policy is actually worse than before. It’s expanding evil services under the guise of accommodating religious freedom.
That’s why abortion groups are cheering it.
It’s also deceptive, and here’s why . . .
The idea that it will be insurance companies that pay for such services is just a shell game. Where are insurance companies going to get the money to pay for these services? They aren’t the Federal Reserve. They aren’t empowered to create money out of nothing the way the Federal Reserve is.
If they’re going to pay doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to provide these things then they are going to pay for them with money they got from someone else.
Who else?
Why! The very same churches, church-related organizations, and individuals who are otherwise paying.
That’s right. That means that now the churches are being asked to pay for the very same services that they were not paying for under the previous policy, because previously they could offer their employees insurance plans that did not include these services. Now the plans will include these services, and the churches are paying for the policies with the legal fiction that the insurance company rather than they are paying for the evil services—unless the insurance company offers the organization a lower rate on the policy, in which case the burden of paying for the abortion drugs and other services is just sloshed around through different parts of their internal spreadsheets but is ultimately still borne by those paying for the policies.
It’s just a shell game.
And this is why this should be of concern not just to Catholics but to our Protestant brethren and our non-Christian friends who share a concern about the cause of life.
What this means is that we all will be forced to pay for these services, but with the payment trail hidden.
In effect President Obama is insisting that the entire American people must pay for abortion drugs, sterilizations, and contraception, only he is having the insurance companies “launder” the money so that we don’t feel like we’re being forced to pay for them.
So, even if you’re not a Catholic, even if you don’t oppose contraception, but if you do care about not funding abortion—or even if you just care about religious liberty and freedom of conscience—then you need to oppose this plan.
Do not be a sucker.
Don’t fall for this.
And don’t let it die over the weekend (notice it was part of the Friday news dump, so come Monday the Obama administration can try to dismiss it as “old news”).
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/evil-obama-policy-now-even-more-evil/#ixzz1m1KOnerg
-
33,
can you tell me in 2 sentences what is going on with this issue? a dozen politically biased articles help not.
-
33,
can you tell me in 2 sentences what is going on with this issue? a dozen politically biased articles help not.
It's is because Roman Catholic institutions as part of their group health insurance plans have to make available contraceptives....
I did it wtih one sentence...
-
so churches (institutions) WANT companies to include birth control? Or they're against it?
I am just not understanding what the issue is, and why it's all over the airwaves. Seems like such a stupid shit divisive issue for people to get all pissy about.
-
so churches (institutions) WANT companies to include birth control? Or they're against it?
I am just not understanding what the issue is, and why it's all over the airwaves. Seems like such a stupid shit divisive issue for people to get all pissy about.
Roman Catholic Institutions (ie:Schools, foundations, et al) want to be able to exclude contraception from the institution's employee group health insurance policies. Their contention is that to offer such is against their religion...
-
ahh - okay - but doesn't this open up the use of sharia law?
what happens when muslim institutions want to be able to exclude X, Y, or Z from health insurance, or other similiar things?
This 'it's against my religion' thing is getting pathetic. STFU about your religion. Practice as you like, but keep it out of the workplace and the courtroom.
Wait until your workplace can't serve ham sandwiches because it's against sharia law... see how much people agree religion should dominate things.
now where are repubs, where is obama, where are the libs on this issue, and where is ron paul on it?
-
ahh - okay - but doesn't this open up the use of sharia law?
what happens when muslim institutions want to be able to exclude X, Y, or Z from health insurance, or other similiar things?
This 'it's against my religion' thing is getting pathetic. STFU about your religion. Practice as you like, but keep it out of the workplace and the courtroom.
Wait until your workplace can't serve ham sandwiches because it's against sharia law... see how much people agree religion should dominate things.
now where are repubs, where is obama, where are the libs on this issue, and where is ron paul on it?
The title of the thread...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
EDITORIAL: Obama’s free abortion pills
The Washington Times ^ | February 10, 2012 | Editorial
Posted on February 10, 2012 9:16:09 PM EST by jazusamo
Revised White House contraception rule changes nothing
Someone should tell President Obama there’s no such thing as a free abortion pill. The White House is trying to douse a political wildfire sparked by an Obamacare mandate forcing religiously affiliated institutions to provide a full range of contraception measures for employees - including pills that induce abortions. Catholic and other religious leaders with principled objections cried foul, citing promises that they and their affiliates would be covered by a “conscience waiver” for any provisions of the law that created this kind of moral dilemma. On Friday Mr. Obama proposed a new rule whereby the onus would be on the insurance companies who cover the employees to reach out with cost-free contraceptives.
It was typical of the administration to make the proposed deal a giveaway program. Mr. Obama seems to be saying that if you don’t see who is paying for the abortion pills then no one is. “Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services,” he said. But of course they will. Insurance companies may be required by law to provide these services at no cost to the recipient, but costs are still involved. Employers will still be directly subsidizing the birth control plan. It was a classic Obama compromise; he gets 100 percent of what he wants and the other side gets a lecture about fairness.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/obamas-act-tyranny
So now thugbama can just order companies to give services and goods away for "free"?
WTF !
-
The Obama HHS 'Compromise' Switches the Tiger for the Lion (Not all Catholics buying Obama's bull)
Catholic Online ^ | 2/10/2012 | staff
Posted on February 10, 2012 10:55:38 PM EST by tobyhill
In an effort to save his administration from collapsing under the weight of the controversy caused by the oppressive Health and Human Services (HHS) edict requiring Catholics to violate their conscience, President Obama announced a "compromise". Unfortunately, the compromise is a thinly veiled smoke and mirrors act of political theater.
Perhaps hoping to fool the innocent into believing that a crisis has been averted, President Obama announced that the Catholic Church and other Christian organizations and outreaches would no longer be forced to cover sterilization procedures and provide contraception and abortifacients in direct violation of their conscience.
The HHS mandate was widely condemned across the Nation as a blatant attack on the Church. It is a violation of the First Amendment Right to the Free Exercise of Religion. It was also widely condemned as a coercive act which, in effect, compels people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs - and violate their consciences - or face severe government sanction.
However, the Obama "compromise" announced on Friday, January 10, 2012 has merely shifted the onus of immorality from the religious employer directly to - the religious employer.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Team Obama Fumbles Ruling, Offends Catholics
Townhall.com ^ | February 11, 2012 | Scott Rasmussen
Posted on February 11, 2012 7:56:43 AM EST by Kaslin
Every sports fan knows that close contests are often decided by mistakes rather than heroics. In this year's Super Bowl, Tom Brady threw just one interception, but Eli Manning didn't throw any. Manning's team won.
What's especially disheartening for fans are unforced errors. Right now, President Obama's fans have reason to worry about a substantive unforced error that threatens his support among Catholic voters.
The Obama administration recently ruled that all insurance policies must offer contraceptive services with no co-payments required. In and of itself, that decision is neither positive nor negative. Forty-three percent of voters favor it, while 46 percent are opposed.
That mandate violates the beliefs of some churches. Normally, religious exemptions are granted in such cases, but not this time. Thirty-nine percent support the administration on this point, while 50 percent are opposed. Even worse for the White House, support for the ruling comes primarily from people who rarely attend church. That's a group that voted strongly for Obama in 2008 and continues to support him today. In other words, no upside.
But, among Catholics, only 28 percent believe religious organizations should be required to implement rules that conflict with church doctrine. Sixty-five percent are opposed. This is true even though many Catholics disagree with church teachings on birth control.
The impact is stunning since 54 percent of Catholics voted for President Obama in 2008. Today, just 39 percent of Catholic voters approve of the way he's doing his job.
Perhaps some strategists thought that Catholics would welcome government help in battling the church on birth control. But Catholics who disagree with the church deal with the situation in the privacy of their own bedroom. They don't need federal help. In fact, it is hard to imagine any person of faith wanting the federal government to have any say in church doctrine and how Holy Scripture should be applied.
While Team Obama wanted to debate contraception, the Catholic League's Bill Donahue said it was unprecedented "for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church." Even The Washington Post, hometown paper for America's Political Class, thought the administration ruling went too far and "does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views." When the Post thinks you've gone too far in imposing federal authority, it's a sure sign that you're pretty far out on a limb.
The unforced error has added impact because it ties directly into other issues that President Obama would rather keep quiet before Election Day. Most voters want more choices in their health care coverage, not less. By a 77 percent to 9 percent margin, voters think everybody should have the right to choose between different types of health insurance plans, including some that cost more and cover just about all medical procedures and some that cost less while covering only major medical procedures. They want options, not mandates.
Additionally, the issue puts the president's unpopular health care law back in the news. Voters already believe that law will increase the cost of health care, and most also believe the decision on contraceptive coverage will add even more costs.
In the end, unforced errors like this will only matter if the election is close. If the economy improves significantly, the president is likely to be re-elected. If the recovery stalls and confidence falls, he is likely to lose. But in a close race, unforced errors could be decisive. Team Obama is probably looking for a way to correct this error and undo the damage well before the fall campaign season arrives.
-
so churches (institutions) WANT companies to include birth control? Or they're against it?
I am just not understanding what the issue is, and why it's all over the airwaves. Seems like such a stupid shit divisive issue for people to get all pissy about.
because it's an election year,that's why this is even a topic,the repubs have 3 losers their running so their trying to compensate for their poor ticket,nothing more nothing less
-
because it's an election year,that's why this is even a topic,the repubs have 3 losers their running so their trying to compensate for their poor ticket,nothing more nothing less
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH YOU CHEAP SKATE!
PAY FOR YOUR OWN CONDOMS!
-
pay now or pay later,it's a hell of alot cheaper now.those are the facts like them or not
-
pay now or pay later,it's a hell of alot cheaper now.those are the facts like them or not
Oh please. Fuck you.
-
pay now or pay later,it's a hell of alot cheaper now.those are the facts like them or not
so me where that's incorrect, mr. oh please ;D
-
so me where that's incorrect, mr. oh please ;D
Who gives a damn about rights and freedom right?
well - you are leftist progressive - of course freedom, choice, and rights dont matter to you.
-
it's an option in the policy, that's it, nobody is forcing them to take pills. repubs compensation for running poor candidates :'(
-
it's an option in the policy, that's it, nobody is forcing them to take pills. repubs compensation for running poor candidates :'(
WHY SHOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE FORCED TO PROVIDE ANY LEVEL OF BENEFITS WHATSOEVER?
-
hahahaha i thought this was a religious freedom thing
-
hahahaha i thought this was a religious freedom thing
Its both moron!
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577215150068215494.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The idiot is making this worse.
-
Its both moron!
so now it's both :D :D oooookkkkkk mr. flipfloper
-
so now it's both :D :D oooookkkkkk mr. flipfloper
You really are a communist thug with no understanding of the USC, freedom, liberty, rights or economics.
You are little more than a leftist parasite looking to pick everyones' pocket.
-
why are you a flip floper ;D
-
why are you a flip floper ;D
I didnt flip flop on anything. The economic and religious issues in this are intertwined.
WHY CANT I HAVE THE CHOICE OF WHAT TO OFFER OR NOT OFFER MY EMPLOYEES YOU COMMUNIST PARASITE?
-
Its not about the church or abortion or pills, its about the govt forcing people to buy shit they dont want to!
ITS NOT ABOUT THE CHURCH YOU DEMENTED FUCK!
flip floper
-
wait, so obam wants to make companies give birth control to companies..
and the church is opposing it..
is THAT the core issue here?
-
wait, so obam wants to make companies give birth control to companies..
and the church is opposing it..
is THAT the core issue here?
Bro - I stand by every single attack i have ever made on you if you think its that simple.
-
Look at this little pussy stain running in circles trying to keep his Obama love fest going.
Hahahaha. What a fucking loser. Get some professional help.
-
Can someone please tell me why the government and Obama should be able to dictate when level of benefits any employer should have to provide?
-
Can "someone" please stop running in circles talking nonsense?
Despite the fucking thread topic, that dumb ass "someone" still says it isn't about the church.
::)
-
Can "someone" please stop running in circles talking nonsense?
Despite the fucking thread topic, that dumb ass "someone" still says it isn't about the church.
::)
It effects the church as an employer you stupid gay stalking pedo troll.
-
Gay remarks = meltdown underway.
Hahaha... keep up the good work for another 80,000 no life having posts on an internet board for the next 5 years.
-
-
Bro - I stand by every single attack i have ever made on you if you think its that simple.
then tell me what the issue is - i STILL can't see it.
Obama wants all companies to hand out birth control to employees - true?
Catholic church is against it?
I see your failure to explain this clearly in 2 sentences as maybe the issue is irrelevant or stupid or unclear.
-
then tell me what the issue is - i STILL can't see it.
Obama wants all companies to hand out birth control to employees - true?
Catholic church is against it?
I see your failure to explain this clearly in 2 sentences as maybe the issue is irrelevant or stupid or unclear.
Obama wants church affiliated organizations to offer BC even if the core beliefs of that organization are strictly anti-BC.
Its a pretty big precedent, in the past, Church affiliated organizations have not had to comply with these type of federal regulations due to the whole "freedom of religious beliefs" deal.
Its bullshit plain and simple, the government should not be able to mandate church based organizations like this, it is violating their right to practice their religious beliefs.
If someone wants BC or the like that the church org's dont offer, they can go somewhere else. And it wouldnt hurt anyone.
This is about money IMHO, someone is going to make money off this, there can be no other reason why they would be forcing this kind of crap in a country founded on the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit.
Which was a pretty big deal when this country was founded, ya know. The right to make these kinds of choices based on your religious beliefs. Imagine the flip side, the Catholic church going around mandating regular hospitals to NOT offer BC. People would be screaming bloody murder.
I may not agree with the church org's on the issue (I believe BC is a necessity), HOWEVER, I do NOT believe the federal government has the right to mandate ANY church group to offer something that fundamentally violates their belief system on such an issue.
But this is the country we live in now, the government is mandating everyone more and more on how to live their lives, everyone has to offer BC, all citizens MUST BUY healthcare from a SELECT GROUP of insurers, and it goes on and on.
We live in a country founded upon individual liberty and freedom from government oppression, and more and more people are just looking to the government for the next mandate on how to live their lives. Its a slippery slope and were just on the start of it.
But make no doubt - were already down the slope too far to go back easily. One thing history has shown us, when people give their government power, said government will NEVER relinquish it willingly or without a fight. And as long as the government keeps the citizens believing were best off by letting them decide how to run our lives, its only going to get worse.
Better dig in.
-
Obama wants church affiliated organizations to offer BC even if the core beliefs of that organization are strictly anti-BC.
Its a pretty big precedent, in the past, Church affiliated organizations have not had to comply with these type of federal regulations due to the whole "freedom of religious beliefs" deal.
Its bullshit plain and simple, the government should not be able to mandate church based organizations like this, it is violating their right to practice their religious beliefs.
If someone wants BC or the like that the church org's dont offer, they can go somewhere else. And it wouldnt hurt anyone.
This is about money IMHO, someone is going to make money off this, there can be no other reason why they would be forcing this kind of crap in a country founded on the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit.
Which was a pretty big deal when this country was founded, ya know. The right to make these kinds of choices based on your religious beliefs. Imagine the flip side, the Catholic church going around mandating regular hospitals to NOT offer BC. People would be screaming bloody murder.
I may not agree with the church org's on the issue (I believe BC is a necessity), HOWEVER, I do NOT believe the federal government has the right to mandate ANY church group to offer something that fundamentally violates their belief system on such an issue.
But this is the country we live in now, the government is mandating everyone more and more on how to live their lives, everyone has to offer BC, all citizens MUST BUY healthcare from a SELECT GROUP of insurers, and it goes on and on.
We live in a country founded upon individual liberty and freedom from government oppression, and more and more people are just looking to the government for the next mandate on how to live their lives. Its a slippery slope and were just on the start of it.
But make no doubt - were already down the slope too far to go back easily. One thing history has shown us, when people give their government power, said government will NEVER relinquish it willingly or without a fight. And as long as the government keeps the citizens believing were best off by letting them decide how to run our lives, its only going to get worse.
Better dig in.
Well said.
-
US Bishops: Obama's 'Compromise' Has No Clear Protection...(Needles Government Intrusion)
Zenit.org ^ | February 10, 2012 | Commentary on U. S. Bishops
Posted on February 12, 2012 12:27:01 AM EST by Salvation
US Bishops: Obama's 'Compromise' Has No Clear Protection for Key Stakeholders
"Today's Proposal Continues to Involve Needless Government Intrusion"
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 10, 2012 (Zenit.org).- The U.S. bishops say the proposal made today by President Barack Obama's administration regarding the mandate to cover abortifacients, sterilization and contraception "continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions."
Obama's proposal came after widespread and energetic condemnation of the Jan. 20 announcement that employers must include abortifacients in the health care plans offered to their employees as part of "preventative care."
"The Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming healthcare for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex process of providing that healthcare," the bishops' statement began. "That is why we raised two serious objections to the 'preventive services' regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011," [and confirmed Jan. 20.]
"All the other mandated 'preventive services' prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease," they observed. "Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the rescission of the mandate altogether."
Then, the prelates explained, they opposed the burden placed on the consciences of "insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage."
"We therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders -- not just the extremely small subset of 'religious employers' that HHS proposed to exempt initially."
Anything new?
The communiqué then explains what the president's proposal today implies.
"First, he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This is both unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot fail to reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question of religious liberty.
"Second, the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be administered, which is still unclear in its details."
The bishops said that a preliminary study of the proposal indicates that it "would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this point, it would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance companies, are not exempt from this mandate. It would allow non-profit, religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage. But the employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The employee would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage, and the coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a separate rider."
The U.S. bishops said that these changes need "careful moral analysis" and "moreover, appear subject to some measure of change."
"But," they stated, "we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders -- for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals -- is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns."
The bishops said that parts of the information on Obama's proposal are in writing and other elements have only been explained orally.
"We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services."
-
Rasmussen: Voters Oppose Obamacare's Contraception Mandate 50% to 39%
The Weekly Standard ^ | 02/08/2012 | John McCormack
Posted on February 11, 2012 6:49:39 PM EST by erkyl
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs, while 10% more are undecided. [...]
Sixty-five percent (65%) of Catholic voters oppose this requirement, as do 62% of Evangelical Christians, and 50% of other Protestants. Most non-Christians (56%) support the Obama Administration ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
-
Skip to comments.
Obama's contempt for the Constitution
The Summit Daily (CO) ^ | February 12, 2012 | John M. Kunst, Jr.
Posted on February 12, 2012 7:36:44 AM EST by Oldeconomybuyer
... Despite his oath of office, in a blatant effort to win the female vote and pander to the pro-choice movement, the president and his administration has mandated that all Catholic churches, schools, universities and hospitals must provide health insurance for their female employees that cover abortion and contraceptive services.
This was not a political miscalculation and it is not “women's health” my friends, it is a president and an administration that has determined he can tell any religion what beliefs it can and cannot hold. This is precisely the kind of authoritarian edict that prompted our Founding Fathers to adopt the First Amendment which our president now refuses to defend.
The president's recent effort to mitigate anger among true Americans is a mere ruse. He says the burden will be placed on insurance companies to approach women employed by Catholic institutions and ask whether they want the “free” abortion and contraception services. “Free?” How many billions are spent on abortion and contraception annually? So, who pays for this “free” insurance coverage? The Catholic Church. Now he thinks we are stupid while rubbing salt in an open, festering sore.
Had enough yet? What will be the next personal liberty, guaranteed to you by the Bill of Rights, that you will have to give up in the name of “Change?”
(Excerpt) Read more at summitdaily.com ...
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/wont_you_come_home_bill_daley.html
Obama was fuking warned by many not to do this.
-
obama is hope and change
333368 is hope hope hope and more hope, i have 3 loser canidates so all i can do is hope that shit like this makes a differance,hope is my only hope :D :D
-
Obama wants church affiliated organizations to offer BC even if the core beliefs of that organization are strictly anti-BC.
Its a pretty big precedent, in the past, Church affiliated organizations have not had to comply with these type of federal regulations due to the whole "freedom of religious beliefs" deal.
Its bullshit plain and simple, the government should not be able to mandate church based organizations like this, it is violating their right to practice their religious beliefs.
If someone wants BC or the like that the church org's dont offer, they can go somewhere else. And it wouldnt hurt anyone.
This is about money IMHO, someone is going to make money off this, there can be no other reason why they would be forcing this kind of crap in a country founded on the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit.
Which was a pretty big deal when this country was founded, ya know. The right to make these kinds of choices based on your religious beliefs. Imagine the flip side, the Catholic church going around mandating regular hospitals to NOT offer BC. People would be screaming bloody murder.
I may not agree with the church org's on the issue (I believe BC is a necessity), HOWEVER, I do NOT believe the federal government has the right to mandate ANY church group to offer something that fundamentally violates their belief system on such an issue.
But this is the country we live in now, the government is mandating everyone more and more on how to live their lives, everyone has to offer BC, all citizens MUST BUY healthcare from a SELECT GROUP of insurers, and it goes on and on.
We live in a country founded upon individual liberty and freedom from government oppression, and more and more people are just looking to the government for the next mandate on how to live their lives. Its a slippery slope and were just on the start of it.
But make no doubt - were already down the slope too far to go back easily. One thing history has shown us, when people give their government power, said government will NEVER relinquish it willingly or without a fight. And as long as the government keeps the citizens believing were best off by letting them decide how to run our lives, its only going to get worse.
Better dig in.
wait where is the money coming from to pay for this forced health care plan? you fucking nit wits are missing the point. The church is dependent on the government, yet wants benefits yet when said benefits are not to there liking they simply cry seperation or church and state, freedom of religion etc. yet they have no issue relying on the government, perhaps freedom of religion should mean they get off the teat of the gov and pay like everyone else. This whole thing is disgusting, they are violating the constitution already morons, they are getting free money that jthey never contributed to, how the fuck is anyone infringing on their rights?
seperation of church and state, apparently is only one way, when the church benefits, they seem to have no problem being welfare queens.
-
obama is hope and change
333368 is hope hope hope and more hope, i have 3 loser canidates so all i can do is hope that shit like this makes a differance,hope is my only hope :D :D
Panetta, Kerry, Daley, Biden all warned Obama from doing this.
-
wait where is the money coming from to pay for this forced health care plan? you fucking nit wits are missing the point. The church is dependent on the government, yet wants benefits yet when said benefits are not to there liking they simply cry seperation or church and state, freedom of religion etc. yet they have no issue relying on the government, perhaps freedom of religion should mean they get off the teat of the gov and pay like everyone else. This whole thing is disgusting, they are violating the constitution already morons, they are getting free money that jthey never contributed to, how the fuck is anyone infringing on their rights?
seperation of church and state, apparently is only one way, when the church benefits, they seem to have no problem being welfare queens.
Why should any employer be forced to provide anything at all?
-
Bishops Reject White House’s New Plan on Contraception (Obama continues his "War On Religion")
ny times ^ | 2/11/2012 | By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Posted on February 12, 2012 9:35:08 AM EST by tobyhill
The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have rejected a compromise on birth control coverage that President Obama offered on Friday and said they would continue to fight the president’s plan to find a way for employees of Catholic hospitals, universities and service agencies to receive free contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans, without direct involvement or financing from the institutions.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — which has led the opposition to the plan — said in a statement late Friday that the solution offered by the White House to quell a political furor was “unacceptable and must be corrected” because it still infringed on the religious liberty and conscience of Catholics.
The bishops’ decision to rebuff the compromise means that “religious freedom” will continue to be a rallying cry for some Catholics who have heard it preached from the pulpit for the last three weeks, for evangelical Christians on the religious right, for Republican candidates on the campaign trail and for members of Congress who are supporting a legislative fix on Capitol Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Obama needs an exorcism over him.
-
i wish the bishops would have rejected the rape of little boys by their priest,but i can see where a rubber is more important ::)
-
i wish the bishops would have rejected the rape of little boys by their priest,but i can see where a rubber is more important ::)
Two have nothing to do w one another.
-
they could have fought for the little boys but instead they chose to hide it under the rug and let it continue.hey but i guess you have to pick your fights ::).so they do have something in common
-
they could have fought for the little boys but instead they chose to hide it under the rug and let it continue.hey but i guess you have to pick your fights ::).so they do have something in common
Your an idiot. The issue is larger than the church itself you communist welfare leech. Pay for your own rubbers.
-
Your an idiot. The issue is larger than the church itself you communist welfare leech. Pay for your own rubbers.
80,000 post, 24/7 on getbig ,trying to change an election,i think we all know who the idiot is ;D
-
80,000 post, 24/7 on getbig ,trying to change an election,i think we all know who the idiot is ;D
Nice way to address the issue. Moron.
-
it's a non issue,the only reason it's going is because it's an election year,that and the repubs have 3 losers running ;D
-
it's a non issue,the only reason it's going is because it's an election year,that and the repubs have 3 losers running ;D
Yeah, govt mandated health insurance is no biggie. You really are a commie thug.
-
wait where is the money coming from to pay for this forced health care plan? you fucking nit wits are missing the point. The church is dependent on the government, yet wants benefits yet when said benefits are not to there liking they simply cry seperation or church and state, freedom of religion etc. yet they have no issue relying on the government, perhaps freedom of religion should mean they get off the teat of the gov and pay like everyone else. This whole thing is disgusting, they are violating the constitution already morons, they are getting free money that jthey never contributed to, how the fuck is anyone infringing on their rights?
seperation of church and state, apparently is only one way, when the church benefits, they seem to have no problem being welfare queens.
::)
Yeah, we get it, you hate the church. Youre looking at this through blinders - you hate the church, you make it well known.
The way youre stating it sounds like this - well if they accept some benefits - then they have to take them all or take none of them - its completely rediculous.
And churchs arent funded completely by the government. Youre being irrational because of your inherit hate for theology.
The government should not mandate that they have to offer BC. Its that simple. If the gov is going to respect our whole "right to practice religious beliefs deal" - then this is a huge infringement.
If theyre going to force them to comply with this - they may as well come out and say this -
"Youre free to practice your religious beliefs as long as they comply with Federal mandates, if theyre different from what we (government) have deemed best for you (the citizen), then you are not allowed to practice your beliefs as such."
Sounds an awful lot like theyre just tossing out the whole "freedom to practice religious beliefs", doesnt it.
You need to get off your anti-religious crusade for a minute and look at the bigger picture - the government is starting to infringe on the basic liberties this country was founded on.
And once they start mandating things like how you practice your religion, its only a matter of time until theyre telling you what political belief you can practice. What vehicles you can drive. How much money you can make. Hell, what religion you can practice period. What you can eat. Where you can go to school.
Where does it end?
::) Your post is completely rediculous, retarded, and missed the very basic point that everyone is up in arms about.
But nooo, its about the church taking government benefits when they are tax exempt. ::)
-
why do some citizens feel it is ok to demand free shit from others?
-
contraceptives, the idea that american catholics generally follow that rule is pretty laughable. :D
-
contraceptives, the idea that american catholics generally follow that rule is pretty laughable. :D
Remember to vote on November 10th
-
the catholic Bishops say the proprosal raises serious moral concerns :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D With all of the sex scandals out there the bishops are the LAST to be teaching us about morals.
-
the catholic Bishops say the proprosal raises serious moral concerns :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D With all of the sex scandals out there the bishops are the LAST to be teaching us about morals.
But pelosi, Obama, Clinton are the right people to tell you to run your life right?
-
the catholic Bishops say the proprosal raises serious moral concerns :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D With all of the sex scandals out there the bishops are the LAST to be teaching us about morals.
Thats like trying to say since a teacher has sex with a student, NO TEACHERS ANYWHERE should be allowed to teach abstinence.
Do you guys even realize how retarded you sound?
-
your right if it was one or two cases,and they knew it was going on and let it happen,even worse they would ship the priest to another town and he would do the same thing so really it's not the same
-
your right if it was one or two cases,and they knew it was going on and the let it happen,even worse they would ship the priest to another town and he would do the same thing so really it's not the same
Teachers cover up shit all the time too.
Yeah, it really is the same, no matter how you spin it. Anything that goes on, you will always have the bottom 10%. That does not invalidate the other 90% from speaking on the subject.
-
so you think the bishop's speak for the ordinary catholics,and they don't use contraceptives ::)
-
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama Set a Contraception Trap for the Right
Feb 13, 2012 12:00 AM EST
Conservatives gleefully revived the culture wars. But they're not winning. How Obama set a trap for the right.
snip//
Suddenly no-drama Obama was neck deep in the kind of religious warfare he vowed to avoid. Many pundits—led by older white Catholic men, such as Joe Scarborough and my friend Chris Matthews and even the fair-minded liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne—declared his decision on contraception as not only morally wrong but a politically disastrous violation of religious freedom. Suddenly the specter of 2004—when the culture-war issue of same-sex marriage gave Ohio and the entire election to George W. Bush—reemerged, and some conservative Catholic Democrats began to panic. Within the administration, almost all the white Catholic men opposed the decision—from Bill Daley to Leon Panetta. But critically, the support for the decision came from women, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and key adviser Valerie Jarrett chief among them. So Obama didn’t ignite just a culture war but a religious and gender war as well. Welcome to the election focused almost entirely on jobs.
But the conflict-driven headlines and predictions of disaster for Obama are, in my view, deeply misleading. Right now, they are driven both by cable news’s love of a good fight and high ratings and by the Republican primary campaign, in which the candidates, especially Newt Gingrich and Santorum, are desperately battling to unify the evangelical base, which is convinced its faith is somehow under attack. In the longer run, however, I suspect this sudden confluence of kerfuffles will be seen as one of the last gasps of the culture war, not its reignition. That’s especially possible since Obama’s swift walk-back last Friday, when he proposed an utterly sensible compromise, which exempts both churches and other religious institutions that cater to the general public from directly covering or paying for birth control, shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies. So Catholic organizations will be able to stay out of the contraception question entirely, while contraception for all women will be kept free of charge. Instead of being lose-lose for the president, it became win-win. Most Catholics will be fine with this compromise, as are the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood. But the bishops? They’ve gone out on a very long limb. This could be the moment when the culture-war tide finally turns and the social wedge issues long deployed so effectively by the Republican right begin to come back and bite them.
The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.
snip//
In other words, this is a potential political winner for President Obama, not just among liberals, many women, younger voters, and moderates—but among American Catholics! And even more so in light of the pragmatic compromise announced last week, which puts the administration precisely where it should be, and in a much better place than it was before the announcement, and reinforces Obama’s reputation as a man willing to compromise, one of his core strengths among independent voters. I found the original rule a step too far. To my mind, when religious institutions play invaluable roles in helping the poor, curing the sick, and housing the homeless, they should be rewarded, not punished. And within reasonable limits, their right to set their own rules on health-care plans should be respected. One reason they do such great work is their religious convictions. We should celebrate that—and try to balance their views (however wrongheaded we may consider them to be) with other legitimate social goals.
-
If we are not winning, why did thugbama have to reverse himself?
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/10/krauthammer_on_obamas_contraception_compromise_smoke_and_mirrors.html
-
That’s especially possible since Obama’s swift walk-back last Friday, when he proposed an utterly sensible compromise, which exempts both churches and other religious institutions that cater to the general public from directly covering or paying for birth control, shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies. So Catholic organizations will be able to stay out of the contraception question entirely, while contraception for all women will be kept free of charge. Instead of being lose-lose for the president, it became win-win. Most Catholics will be fine with this compromise, as are the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood. But the bishops? They’ve gone out on a very long limb. This could be the moment when the culture-war tide finally turns and the social wedge issues long deployed so effectively by the Republican right begin to come back and bite them.
The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it. Andrew Sullivan
-
is it the same krauthammer that said this ;D“embarrassing” Republican candidates and the “ridiculous” behavior of the Congressional Republican leadership.
-
LOL. Yeah, trying to say political incompetence was a plot.
So Obama lied to the Bishop out of politics?
Says a lot about the ghetto communist street pimp no?
-
is it the same krauthammer that said this ;D“embarrassing” Republican candidates and the “ridiculous” behavior of the Congressional Republican leadership.
Stick to the issues douche.
-
Stick to the issues douche.
must be the same guy :D :D :D :D :D
-
must be the same guy :D :D :D :D :D
Get your greedy hands out of my wallet and keep Obama out of my bedroom damn it!
-
::)
Yeah, we get it, you hate the church. Youre looking at this through blinders - you hate the church, you make it well known.
The way youre stating it sounds like this - well if they accept some benefits - then they have to take them all or take none of them - its completely rediculous.
And churchs arent funded completely by the government. Youre being irrational because of your inherit hate for theology.
The government should not mandate that they have to offer BC. Its that simple. If the gov is going to respect our whole "right to practice religious beliefs deal" - then this is a huge infringement.
If theyre going to force them to comply with this - they may as well come out and say this -
"Youre free to practice your religious beliefs as long as they comply with Federal mandates, if theyre different from what we (government) have deemed best for you (the citizen), then you are not allowed to practice your beliefs as such."
Sounds an awful lot like theyre just tossing out the whole "freedom to practice religious beliefs", doesnt it.
You need to get off your anti-religious crusade for a minute and look at the bigger picture - the government is starting to infringe on the basic liberties this country was founded on.
And once they start mandating things like how you practice your religion, its only a matter of time until theyre telling you what political belief you can practice. What vehicles you can drive. How much money you can make. Hell, what religion you can practice period. What you can eat. Where you can go to school.
Where does it end?
::) Your post is completely rediculous, retarded, and missed the very basic point that everyone is up in arms about.
But nooo, its about the church taking government benefits when they are tax exempt. ::)
oh i see your for religious freedom over personal freedoms, i didn't know that to be in the church you had to live under dictatorship.
you are just making up shit, they are tax exempt, they are not paying for the plan, so why are you saying its infringement on their rights? what rights? once they agree to pay no taxes and then benefit from said taxes they have no rights with my money.
-
did obama cave on the issue?
-
:). No. He doubled down on tyranny and stupid today. He is a communist street pimp and thug.
-
good ;D
-
oh i see your for religious freedom over personal freedoms, i didn't know that to be in the church you had to live under dictatorship.
you are just making up shit, they are tax exempt, they are not paying for the plan, so why are you saying its infringement on their rights? what rights? once they agree to pay no taxes and then benefit from said taxes they have no rights with my money.
Im not making anything up, I said right in my post theyre tax exempt.
YOURE saying that since they accept gov benefits, they have to accept ALL gov benefits, again youre looking though blinders.
How the fuck am I against personal freedoms? People that want BC, can go elsewhere. How the fuck are you getting ANYTHING other than Obama is trying to force the church to comply with mandates against their fundamental beliefs?
Jesus christ get passed your fucking anti-church bias.
I dont agree with the church on this issue, but im sure as fuck not going to try and force them to follow what I believe. Thats intrusion on their right to practice their religion how they see fit, and it sure as fuck doesnt infringe on anyone elses personal freedoms for CHURCH BASED ORGANIZATIONS to not offer BC. The church is not trying to mandate that all non church organizations to not offer BC.
Why should they? Why should the government be able to mandate what they should offer to people? Its not like the people HAVE to go to them, they can go anywhere. Thats the very basis of what our country was fucking founded on.
How the fuck are you spinning this into an issue of the church being a dictatorship? Youre the one making shit up you fucking idiot.
-
??? ;)
good ;D
Of course because like the good progressive communist ows rabble you are, you love the idea of thugbama running your life.
-
??? ;)
Of course because like the good progressive communist ows rabble you are, you love the idea of thugbama running your life.
Dude is a moron. Evidently I was making shit up when I said the church was tax exempt. Even though he straightened me out by informing me they were tax exempt.
Oh.. wait.... ::)
And his logic why they need to comply, is that since they recieve gov benefits, they need to STFU and comply with ALL gov mandates even when it violates their basic freedom to practice religious beliefs.
Oh, and the best, that allowing church organizations to decide weather to offer BC or not, is somehow the Church forcing people to live under a dictatorship, like people arent allowed to choose what they believe and where they recieve care.
Oh, I almost forgot this gem, since a couple bishops molested kids, that means that the catholic church is forever banned from speaking on moral issues, because a tiny percentage of its members did something immoral.
Intellectual genius, this one. Lol. :D
-
:).
I don't even accept the premise that any employer should be forced to provide any level of benefits as manadated by the feg govt whatsoever in the first place.
Do these morons not realize that when they get a presedient they hate w all these powers that they are going to be on the receiving end of even worse shit later on?
How on earth is anyone ok w vesting all this power and authority in one person and his henchman at HHS?
-
Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test
February 10, 2012 RSS Feed Print
Take a look at the White House fact sheet just released on the president's "accommodation" on the Health and Human Services ruling on contraceptives and religious liberty:
Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she [sic] works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.
The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and fully accomodates [sic] important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting non-profit religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception.
[Vote: Does Obama's Contraceptive Compromise Go Far Enough?]
The language above reads that "women" (I believe the president means all women) will be receiving free preventive care under the Affordable Care Act, including contraception without a co-pay, "no matter where she works." And a woman's "insurance company will be required to directly offer her" free contraception. What has changed from earlier this week?
The administration is trying to pull a fast one here. "No matter where she works" sure sounds to me like it includes all religious employers. According to the language above, religious employers will still be compelled to offer health insurance to their employees that includes contraception, especially the morning-after pill—by the way, I don't think any Catholic considers a morning-after pill to be "preventive care"—only now under the guise that it's the insurance companies, not the employers, who are offering the healthcare plans. In our family, we get our health insurance through my husband's employer. Like most families, when we have issues with our coverage, it's not the H.R. department at my husband's office that I call. I call the health insurance company. Everyone knows that it is health insurance companies, not the employers, who offer the actual coverage. That's why this announcement today doesn't pass the smell test.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the Catholic contraception controversy.]
It doesn't change a thing. It's no surprise that Planned Parenthood released a statement in support of today's decision before the president had even announced it.
It's clear that the president felt he had to move quickly here, and I think the lack of thoughtfulness is going to backfire. It was obvious to anyone watching the news this week that this had become bigger than a fight about contraception and bigger than the Republican Party. It was becoming even bigger than Catholic voters.
Former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley was the first to express concern, then according to Politico this week, the White House began losing Democratic support. Former Democratic National Committee chairman and Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine; the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey; House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson; Democratic Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois; and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia all came out against the ruling. (Manchin, in fact, called the HHS ruling "un-American.") The outrage also widened beyond just Catholics: more and more religious leaders were signing on—in op-ed pages, on morning television shows, not to mention all the Shabbat and Christian services and Sunday masses this weekend. The White House knew it was losing ground quickly and they're hoping this will stop the outrage.
[Read the U.S. News debate: Should Catholic and Other Religious Institutions Have to Cover Birth Control?]
The ruling to force universal "access to preventive care" was a deliberate decision by the White House, months in the making, and this so-called "accommodation" reinforces the administration's commitment to its prochoice agenda. It does nothing to accommodate people of good faith who disagree with the president; instead he accuses those who object to his policy of trying to create a "political football." The reason this struck such a chord with so many is not because it was about birth control pills or even access to care. This galvanized people across the board because it threatened religious freedom for all denominations, it was an issue of conscience that cut across party lines, and it touched the lives of everyone who is involved with good church-run community organizations that I believe still face bankruptcy for their beliefs. This isn't over yet.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2012/02/10/obamas-contraceptive-compromise-doesnt-pass-the-smell-test
-
BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate
Lifesitenews.com ^ | Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 EST | Kathleen Gilbert
Posted on February 10, 2012 1:28:01 PM EST by unique1
WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.
The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.”
“The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”
-
EDITORIAL: Obama’s free abortion pills (Obama forces religious organizations to give abortions)
washington times ^ | 2/10/2012 | staff
Someone should tell President Obama there’s no such thing as a free abortion pill. The White House is trying to douse a political wildfire sparked by an Obamacare mandate forcing religiously affiliated institutions to provide a full range of contraception measures for employees - including pills that induce abortions. Catholic and other religious leaders with principled objections cried foul, citing promises that they and their affiliates would be covered by a “conscience waiver” for any provisions of the law that created this kind of moral dilemma. On Friday Mr. Obama proposed a new rule whereby the onus would be on the insurance companies who cover the employees to reach out with cost-free contraceptives.
It was typical of the administration to make the proposed deal a giveaway program. Mr. Obama seems to be saying that if you don’t see who is paying for the abortion pills then no one is. “Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services,” he said. But of course they will. Insurance companies may be required by law to provide these services at no cost to the recipient, but costs are still involved. Employers will still be directly subsidizing the birth control plan. It was a classic Obama compromise; he gets 100 percent of what he wants and the other side gets a lecture about fairness.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
February 13, 2012
Barack Obama: In the Footsteps of Twentieth Century Despots
By Steve McCann
How many times will the American people have to be hit over the head before they understand that Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?
This mindset has been on display since the beginning of Obama's term, as detailed by David Limbaugh in his book, Crimes Against Liberty. Yet so many seem to not care or are deliberately oblivious to the long-term implications of his actions, many of which mirror those of the despots that ran roughshod over the last century.
The recent ruling by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services forcing religious institutions to provide either directly or through private insurance not only contraceptives, but abortion pills and sterilization is not a matter of so-called women's rights, but a means of setting the precedent and foundation to force organized religion to be subservient to the state.
The passage of ObamaCare, from which this edict stems, has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day-to-day activities of the American people through the dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation's history, will be eradicated forever.
Further, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no administration in the nation's past has so aggressively promoted abortion, and, through the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the very real prospect of government-sponsored euthanasia.
Nothing reveals Obama's dictatorial mindset more than his relationship with Congress. His recent actions in unilaterally making appointments that are subject to Senate approval while the Senate is still in session are blatantly unconstitutional and done to marginalize Congress. His appointment of innumerable "czars" is a means of bypassing Congress and their oversight of the federal Cabinet departments. His Department of Justice has been transformed into an advocacy group to enforce the left-wing radical version of social justice while refusing to be accountable to Congress. Obama has resorted to utilizing executive orders and volumes of regulations from various agencies under his command in order to put in place his radical policies and sidestep Congress and thus the will of the people.
In furtherance of Obama's transformative goals, he and his minions are in the process of shackling the free market through unfettered government control and influence. It is the aim of the Obama presidency to create a so-called "government-business partnership" wherein the government chooses the winners and losers based upon their allegiance to and support of the regime.
The massive spending and debt incurred over the past three years are the byproduct of Obama's overarching objective to make certain that the overwhelming majority of the populace becomes, by necessity, dependent on the government, thus more subservient and easily controlled. Whether the country becomes insolvent or the middle class ceases to exist is immaterial.
In his public speeches and well-produced appearances, Barack Obama plays the fictional role of someone who cares for the "little guy." He is the people's avenger against those he defines as the enemy, be it the wealthy, the corporations, deeply committed religious groups, conservatives and the Tea Party movement, or those intransigent ideologues in Congress who stand in the way of his nation-saving agenda. In this quest for power, there are no lies or obfuscations too egregious to tell or societal tensions too dangerous to create, as he alone can save the nation.
Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of the despots who dominated the 20th century. If given another term in office, he, along with his fellow-travelers in the administration, will be unencumbered in attempting to complete the transformation of the United States. However, they will not accomplish their quest -- just as those they admire in the previous century did not. They will succeed only in initiating massive social upheaval and violence.
I had to survive a war that was precipitated by leaders in various European countries who were democratically elected. Yet once in power, these power-crazed ideologues began to systematically usurp and overthrow the rule of law with the ultimate goal of becoming the government themselves.
Their lust for power led them to shred any written constitution or traditions as they systematically imposed new regulations, laws, and executive orders geared primarily to centralize authority in the government as individual rights and liberties were extinguished. Legislatures were abolished or marginalized; organized religion was forced to be subservient to the state, and respect for the sanctity of life was extinguished. The owners and managers of business and industry were intimidated and compelled to be submissive and loyal to the state. By the time the populace became aware of what was happening to their respective countries, it was too late.
The citizens of Germany in the first four years of the 1930s would have found it impossible to imagine what became of their country by 1945 or to think it even remotely possible. Those in Italy in the 1920s, promised so much by the Mussolini regime, eagerly voted the Fascists into power only to end up with a society torn asunder and a nation lying in ruins. The same results were played out in Russia, China, and many countries in Eastern Europe.
The history of the United States and its traditions of liberty and individual freedom should be a bulwark against the successful emergence of someone like Barack Obama and his cronies. Yet the majority of the citizenry, the media, the opposition party, the members of Congress, and the judiciary are not shouting from the highest hilltop and taking action to stop the Obama regime's unconstitutional acts and power-grabs.
Has this country enjoyed peace and prosperity so long that everyone is jaded and preoccupied with themselves, or in a self-induced stupor, either ignoring the situation or telling themselves that these unconstitutional steps and power-grabs are minor? Is a pre-packaged television image all that matters? Is it because Obama happens to have black skin, and everyone is too intimidated by political correctness to speak out? Are we as a society unwilling to say in the bluntest of terms that a national leader is a liar and a fraud? Why are countless members of the Ruling Class unwilling to learn from history, or is it that their egos are such that they cannot admit a mistake, or do far too many have a vested interest in the current state of affairs?
Perhaps it is as it was in Germany, Italy, and Russia among many -- a belief that the worst could never happen here.
For those of us who emigrated from those nations whose societies suffered not only overwhelming destruction, but a devastating loss of freedom and liberty, we can only warn our fellow citizens that the country is going down a road that is becoming eerily familiar. It is not hyperbole to say that we see someone in the White House whose character reflects the worst and most dangerous traits to be found in a national leader, and we are stunned that the majority of the American people do not understand what is happening to the most successful society in the history of mankind. We know that the only viable solution to avoid the stormclouds gathering over the horizon is to relegate Barack Obama and his regime to a footnote in the annals of American history.
Either the citizens, on the 6th of November 2012, will choose to reverse course and return to the basic tenets of freedom and liberty upon which the nation was founded, or the people will choose to blindly follow Barack Obama on a path which will eventuate in internal chaos and violence as well as subservience to those countries who wish to see the end of America's time on the world stage.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/02/barack_obama_in_the_footsteps_of_twentieth_century_despots.html at February 13, 2012 - 07:19:34 AM CST
-
February 13, 2012
Barack Obama: In the Footsteps of Twentieth Century Despots
By Steve McCann
The recent ruling by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services forcing religious institutions to provide either directly or through private insurance not only contraceptives, but abortion pills and sterilization is not a matter of so-called women's rights, but a means of setting the precedent and foundation to force organized religion to be subservient to the state.
The passage of ObamaCare, from which this edict stems, has nothing to do with healthcare; rather, it is a vehicle to ultimately control the day-to-day activities of the American people through the dictates and mandates emanating from an overarching bureaucracy. Once fully implemented, individual liberty and freedom, the hallmarks of the nation's history, will be eradicated forever.Further, the Obama regime has shown a callous disregard for the sanctity of life, as no administration in the nation's past has so aggressively promoted abortion, and, through the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the very real prospect of government-sponsored euthanasia.
[/i]
This is exactly how I saw it, this has nothing to do with BC, its about forcing others to comply with an ideological view, which flies in the face of the very foundations of our country.
But, Barack Obama has absolutley no respect for our constitution, our liberties or freedoms, or anything that doesnt coincide with his views of how Americans should live their lives and conduct themselves.
We should be ashamed we allowed a man like this to be voted into office without actually knowing what and who he was.
This man does not respect our right to choose how to live our lives. He believes that we need to have those choices made for us so we make the right ones.
-
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT
The Libertine Police State
By George Weigel
February 13, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Shortly after Prep-Comm III, the Third Preparatory Commission meeting in anticipation of the 1994 Cairo World Conference on Population and Development, one of those “Senior Vatican Officials” who like to remain nameless told me an enlightening story. For his sins, the SVO had been condemned to attend Prep-Comm III and try to prevent it from calling for a universal human right to abortion on demand, which would then be formally declared at the impending Cairo conference. His tale of what unfolded during his week of Purgatory remains quite relevant, despite its age. In fact, one moment from Prep-Comm III sheds important light on recent events, including the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood wars and the Obama administration’s determination to compel employers to provide contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization “services” those employers find morally abhorrent.
Like other U.N. circuses, the diplomatic circus of Prep-Comm III, held in New York, was accompanied by a parallel circus of international non-governmental organizations; and to that sideshow activists from around the globe flocked in their thousands, united in their commitment to lifestyle libertinism. The formal diplomatic proceedings in Prep-Comm III were harsh enough, with the Vatican coming under verbal assault from U.N. bureaucrats and European politicians for its principled opposition to “reproductive rights” that included abortion on demand. (The ineffable Gro Harlem Brundtland, then prime minister of Norway, dismissed the Holy See as “a small state with no natural inhabitants.” And that was on the mild side of the assault.) But it was in the INGO meeting that things really got down and dirty — and clarifying. There, as the Senior Vatican Official told the story, a somewhat scruffy Dutch activist got up and announced to all and sundry, “Let’s stop fooling around here. What we’re talking about is our right to f*** whoever we want, however we want, whenever we want.”
The Dutchman’s formulation may have lacked elegance, but it certainly didn’t lack precision. For that was precisely what was at issue 18 years ago, and it is precisely what is at issue today: Will the sexual revolution, which reduced sex to a recreational activity of no moral consequence, be protected, advanced, and indeed mandated by the coercive powers of the modern state?
There is irony in the fire here, of course. What began as a movement to liberate sexuality from the constraints of moral reason, custom, and law has become a movement determined to use the instruments of law to impose its deconstruction of human sexuality and its moral relativism on all of society. That is what drives those who urged the Obama administration to issue its “contraceptive” mandate, which is of course an abortifacient and sterilization mandate. That is what drives those who loosed the furies (including such viragos as Senator Barbara Boxer) on the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, which had had the temerity to suggest that Planned Parenthood actually provide the mammograms Komen’s grants were paying for. It’s all about Leviathan as enforcer of the sexual revolution.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that — from Catholic bishops to upper-class foundation executives with previously immaculate reputations — is going to get rolled over by Leviathan. For Leviathan cannot be met at some mythical 50-yard line of “accommodation.” Leviathan can only be beaten.
This fierce determination to use Leviathan to make sure that that Dutch INGO delegate’s libidinous desires are requited might be tolerable if its effects were confined to those who want to, well, you know: whoever, whenever, however. But they are not. The sexual revolution distorts everything that gets in its way; and in due course, it will persecute anything that gets in its way.
To take one current example: The threat to religious freedom posed by the administration’s “contraceptive” mandate is not the kind of inadvertent political faux pas that Joe Biden and Bill Daley would have us believe it was. Rather, the order to religious institutions and employers to re-arrange their convictions to suit Leviathan’s pleasure is of a piece with the administration’s dumbing-down of religious freedom in its international human-rights policy. On numerous occasions, the secretary of state has declined to speak of “religious freedom,” but has referred to “freedom of worship.” Thus religious freedom is rendered a kind of privacy right that can be upheld so long as what happens religiously takes place out of the public square. This is manifestly absurd on its face: For if religious freedom is simply freedom of worship, then there is religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, so long as Christian or Jewish prayer takes place behind closed doors (and no one snitches to the Islamist purity police).
But to make matters worse, Secretary Clinton and the administration have linked this dumbing-down of religious freedom to their ramping-up of what they frankly call the “LGBT agenda” as a priority concern of U.S. international human-rights policy. On the one hand, religious freedom is hollowed out, abroad and at home. On the other hand, the LGBT agenda — the logical endgame of the sexual revolution’s gnosticism and antinomianism — is given priority in the human-rights agenda of the U.S. government around the world, while other planks in the libertine platform are imposed by coercive state power at home. Leviathan is nothing if not consistent.
Then there are the sexual revolution’s cultural impacts. At the risk of salaciousness, go back to that scruffy Dutchman’s claim in 1994, ponder it a moment — and then see if it doesn’t become piercingly obvious that there is a direct line of connection between that vulgarity and the implicit claim in much of the Komen/Planned Parenthood and HHS-mandate brawls: namely, that the transmission of human life is a disease to be “prevented.” Which, of course, means that children are not the fruit of love and a precious gift to be received with gratitude, but another lifestyle choice to be indulged at the whim of the imperial autonomous Self.
Where this is all leading is not pleasant to contemplate. But if Leviathan is to be confronted, and defeated, in his attempt to impose the sexual revolution by brute state power, a critical mass of morally serious minds have got to get clear on one crucial point: The invention of the oral contraceptive was, with the splitting of the atom and the unraveling of the DNA double helix, one of the three world-historical scientific developments of the last century — scientific accomplishments that have within themselves the capacity to change culture and history in fundamental ways. By effectively sundering sexual expression from procreation, modern contraceptives have done something their less-effective predecessors were unable to do for millennia: They have created a contraceptive culture that identifies fertility with disease and willful infertility with “health.” Those who celebrate that culture are not interested in compromise: They are interested in having everyone pay for what they want, and in levying serious penalties on those who won’t truckle to their will.
The issue, it might be added, is not family planning. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches that all couples have a moral responsibility to plan their families. The question at issue is one of means: What methods of regulating fertility are congruent with the dignity of human beings and especially the dignity of women? That, in fact, is the question that ought to have been posed to that vulgar Dutch activist 18 years ago. It remains to be pressed home today.
One final point. At the beginning, the 2012 election was about jobs, jobs, and jobs. The culture wars have now reshaped the race, and the stakes, as Iran may eventually do in another sphere of policy. But what the Komen/Planned Parenthood and HHS-mandate battles ought to have made clear is that 2012 is, domestically, an election about the survival of civil society. Will Leviathan continue to trample the institutions of civil society at the behest of the champions of lifestyle libertinism? Will such institutions as marriage, the family, and the Church be permitted to exist only insofar as they become wards of the state, or simulacra of the state?
That, and nothing less than that, is the question the past several weeks have put before the American people.
— George Weigel is distinguished senior fellow at Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.
Permalink
-
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
forget this bullshit divisive culture war issue. spending is what really destroys america.
-
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
forget this bullshit divisive culture war issue. spending is what really destroys america.
You are FOS! Having a tyrannical despot and communist ghetto street pimp like obama trying to run our lives like this is just as important.
and divisive? FUCK YOU!!!!
Obama picked this fight and WAS WARNED by many not to do this.
-
-
W.H. official: Contraceptive rule stands
By Leigh Ann Caldwell
"We're going to go ahead and implement it," White House Chief of Staff Jack Law said.
After being pressed by host Bob Schieffer about the White House's latest change to its contraception coverage policy and the push-back the administration is receiving from the Catholic Church, Lew said the White House is comfortable with its decision.
"We have broad consensus - not universal consensus - that this is an approach that's right," Lew said.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced the modification in a lengthy statement: "We will therefore continue - with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency - our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57376151/w.h-official-contraceptive-rule-stands/
-
Jack Lew is another corrupt 1% who helped orchestrate the mortgage meltdown.
Obama is a thug, a despot, a communist street pimp, and the black plague on this nation.
-
Jack Lew is another corrupt 1% who helped orchestrate the mortgage meltdown.
Obama is a thug, a despot, a communist street pimp, and the black plague on this nation.
you forgot he also hands out rubbers :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
you forgot he also hands out rubbers :D :D :D :D :D :D
He is not handing out anything. He stole the money from taxpayers to reward others. Its called theft and larceny, someing the devout christian obama said he is against.
-
Obama's contempt for the Constitution
The Summit Daily (CO) ^ | February 12, 2012 | John M. Kunst, Jr.
... Despite his oath of office, in a blatant effort to win the female vote and pander to the pro-choice movement, the president and his administration has mandated that all Catholic churches, schools, universities and hospitals must provide health insurance for their female employees that cover abortion and contraceptive services.
This was not a political miscalculation and it is not “women's health” my friends, it is a president and an administration that has determined he can tell any religion what beliefs it can and cannot hold. This is precisely the kind of authoritarian edict that prompted our Founding Fathers to adopt the First Amendment which our president now refuses to defend.
The president's recent effort to mitigate anger among true Americans is a mere ruse. He says the burden will be placed on insurance companies to approach women employed by Catholic institutions and ask whether they want the “free” abortion and contraception services. “Free?” How many billions are spent on abortion and contraception annually? So, who pays for this “free” insurance coverage? The Catholic Church. Now he thinks we are stupid while rubbing salt in an open, festering sore.
Had enough yet? What will be the next personal liberty, guaranteed to you by the Bill of Rights, that you will have to give up in the name of “Change?”
(Excerpt) Read more at summitdaily.com ...
-
The Republicans are getting desperate and looking for wedge issues for the upcoming election. Issues that can be used to polarize voters, usually related to religion or dogma. They were more than happy when some Catholic bishops (not parishioners) objected to including contraception with their employee’s health coverage. The bishops claim this is violating their religious freedoms. The Republican candidates couldn’t wait to jump in. Forget the economy, the war in Afghanistan, and bailing out Bank of America, they must protect religious freedoms. But the government isn’t requiring anyone to use birth control only requiring the option (option means freedom to choose which Republicans are know to hate) to be included in health insurance coverage. Women would be free to make their own minds up (OMG, now I know why Republicans are against it). And in fact, over 90% of Catholic women disagree with the church’s dogma against birth control. And with almost 100% of American women using birth control, who is out of touch? If you guess the Catholic bishops AND the Republican candidates, you win.
Now some will argue that the Catholic church shouldn’t be forced to pay for something they don’t believe in (something the bishops dont believe in not parishioners) those that make this argument should be reminded that some of us don’t believe in the war in Afghanistan, yet our tax dollars (and a lot of them) go to fight this unnecessary war.
This post was inspired by Katha Pollitt, “Obama Stands Up to Bishops. Finally.” Feb 20, 2012, The Nation. She does a much better job of course.
-
Hey asshole - stop making me pay for your sexual decisions!
You liberals are greedy mini-madoffs and locusts.
-
hahaha the repubs jumped on the wrong train and poor 333386 is right there with them hanging on the handrails of the caboose :D
-
hahaha the repubs jumped on the wrong train and poor 333386 is right there with them hanging on the handrails of the caboose :D
Show me where in the USC I should be forced to pay for your birth control you looting, grifting, thief!
-
-
they didn't have birth control then, :D :D :D :D
-
-
just think if this plan was around before you were born your mother wouldn't have you living in her basement ;D
-
just think if this plan was around before you were born your mother wouldn't have you living in her basement ;D
You leftists and communists are nothing but a bunch of freeloading, grifting, looting, stealing, locusts.
-
You leftists and communists are nothing but a bunch of freeloading, grifting, looting, stealing, locusts.
-
Im not making anything up, I said right in my post theyre tax exempt.
YOURE saying that since they accept gov benefits, they have to accept ALL gov benefits, again youre looking though blinders.
How the fuck am I against personal freedoms? People that want BC, can go elsewhere. How the fuck are you getting ANYTHING other than Obama is trying to force the church to comply with mandates against their fundamental beliefs?
Jesus christ get passed your fucking anti-church bias.
I dont agree with the church on this issue, but im sure as fuck not going to try and force them to follow what I believe. Thats intrusion on their right to practice their religion how they see fit, and it sure as fuck doesnt infringe on anyone elses personal freedoms for CHURCH BASED ORGANIZATIONS to not offer BC. The church is not trying to mandate that all non church organizations to not offer BC.
Why should they? Why should the government be able to mandate what they should offer to people? Its not like the people HAVE to go to them, they can go anywhere. Thats the very basis of what our country was fucking founded on.
How the fuck are you spinning this into an issue of the church being a dictatorship? Youre the one making shit up you fucking idiot.
how am i spinning it? clearly certain people in the church dont like birth control, maybe some do, you are acting as if everyone in the church is against birth control, if one person wants it then they should get it. Those that want a birth control free plan can go buy one.
Listen, religion is stupid, their belief that contraception is evil is demostrably stupid im glad we have a president that is saying shut the fuck up and get in line with everyone else. I dont want my tax dollars paying for such stupidity. You act as if all beliefs are equal, they are not, Hitler had a different belief i didn't support it and i don't support the church using tax payer money to have a health policy that is missing a key part, a part that saves the US billions a year, it is also an economic tool you twits.
so you are saying that the chruch are being...what... made the victim? they are receiving benefits from the government, but not like a bailout etc they paid nothing to get these benefits, like normal hard working people. So the list is
church: no taxes, apparently majority rules despite everyone paying equally since no one is paying for it, why is any one person in the church deciding? they should have all equal say or no say, no say is what i say. want others to pay for their idiotic belief, despite evidence birth control saves lives, reduces economic burden and number of single parent relationships and you want your tax dollars to support this belief? why because belief deserves admiration? no it certainly does fucking not, especially when its dangerous and clearly irrational. If they were paying then i would say do whatever the fuck you want but if they are using gov money to which they did not contribute and the arguments they present are based on nomads and retards who wrote a book which inversely correlates with reality then sorry this isn't a special handout ceremony pay for a fucking health plan then like many many others, who also pay taxes.
Oh ya the fact that the church is ultra rich doesn't madden you? they are sitting on billions, yet pay no taxes loloololololololol. People are starving and the pope is sitting in a gold encrusted chair.
seriously i'm not blinded by hate, i hate religion but i care about truth more. If the gov were saying that the church had to have a particular policy and had no money involved i would fight to the death for the church to have no birth control. Its not black and white and you idiots with your small stupid brains can't fathom it, its obama is big gov forcing the little old church to have birth control.
It's not and your arguments have been defeated over and over, i have facts you have emotion.
-
ITS NOT ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL OR THE CHURCH!!!!
Its about the Fedzilla mandating people buy shit and not have the choice fo what to offer employees.
Are you seriously this thick headed to not see that the issue is a lot larger than your hatred of the church!
WHY SHOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE FORCED TO PAY FOR BENEFITS AS DICTATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVT?
-
ITS NOT ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL OR THE CHURCH!!!!
Its about the Fedzilla mandating people buy shit and not have the choice fo what to offer employees.
Are you seriously this thick headed to not see that the issue is a lot larger than your hatred of the church!
WHY SHOULD ANY EMPLOYER BE FORCED TO PAY FOR BENEFITS AS DICTATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVT?
Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America why did you put this the title of the post,you are the king of flip flops :D
-
Notre Dame Faculty to Obama: ‘This Is a Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
February 12, 2012
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts
President Barack Obama receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in May 2009. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - Twenty-five Notre Dame faculty members--led by the university’s top ethics expert, and including some of the school’s most eminent scholars--have signed a statement declaring that President Barack Obama’s latest version of his administration’s mandate that all health insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, is “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand."
The statement—put out on the letterhead of the University of Notre Dame Law School--is also signed by leading scholars from other major American colleges and universities, including Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Brigham Young, Yeshiva and Wheaton College.
Prof. Carter Snead, a professor of law at Notre Dame, was one of the lead organizers of the statement, which was published on his official law school letterhead. Notre Dame's top ethics expert, Snead serves as director of the university's Center for Ethics and Culture, a position to which he was appointed by Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame.
In 2009, Father Jenkins awarded President Barack Obama an honorary Notre Dame law degree.
Some of the other distinguished Notre Dame faculty who signed the statement condemning Obama’s mandate are Prof. Patrick Griffin, chairman of Notre Dame's History Department; Prof. Richard Garnett, an associate dean; John Cavadini, director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Church Life; Christian Smith, director of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society; Prof. Paolo Carozza, director of Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights; Prof. Philip Bess, Notre Dame’s Director of Graduate Studies; and Father Wilson Miscamble, a professor of history.
Other leading organizers of the letter included Prof. Robert George of Princeton and Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School.
When Obama received his honorary degree at Notre Dame's May 17, 2009, commencement, he vowed to respect the conscience rights of those who believe abortion is wrong.
“Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women,” said Obama. “Those are things we can do.”
Many Catholic bishops and lay leaders had criticized Notre Dame's decision to grant Obama an honorary degree--pointing to his long-standing position in favor of legalized abortion on demand, which included going so far as to oppose a law in the Illinois state senate that would have simply said that a baby born alive in that state was entitled to the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as any other born "person."
In their statement released late Friday, the 25 Notre Dame faculty members and the many other prominent scholars from other institutions who joined them said that Obama’s sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate--even with Obama’s proposed adjustments on Friday--remains an “assault on religious liberty and rights of conscience.”
“The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (‘cost free’) these same products and services,” said the scholars. “Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.
“This so-called ‘accommodation’ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy,” they said. “It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.”
The statement also said that Obama’s latest iteration of the regulation is “an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims” and “cannot stand.”
“The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization,” the scholars said. “This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.”
-
Obama is going to hell.
-
-
-
Obama is going to hell.
LOL.
Obama promised? And he did not fulfill those promises?
Same as every other politician. Wasn't he supposed to be different? Something about change? Huh? Where is that change?
-
once he quotes god and talks about purpose and blah blah i know he is a moron.
what are the church being forced to buy? this guy is a fucking lying idiot.
-
Why should anyone be forced to buy insurance if they dont want to?
-
Why should anyone be forced to buy insurance if they dont want to?
who is buying? how much of the churchs money is being used here? what exactly are people buying? so you are suggesting obama is forcing the church to use its own money to pay for a government run healthplan? this is what you are selling?
they aren't buying shit, they aren't paying for fuck all and quite frankly people like you make it hard for others to live. You shouldnt be allowed to vote.
-
who is buying? how much of the churchs money is being used here? what exactly are people buying? so you are suggesting obama is forcing the church to use its own money to pay for a government run healthplan? this is what you are selling?
they aren't buying shit, they aren't paying for fuck all and quite frankly people like you make it hard for others to live. You shouldnt be allowed to vote.
AGAIN YOU ECONOMICALLY ILLITERATE COMMUNIST THUG - WHY SHOULD ANYONE, BE IT AN INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, CHARITY, ETC BE FORCED TO BUY ANYTHING BY THE GOVT?
-
AGAIN YOU ECONOMICALLY ILLITERATE COMMUNIST THUG - WHY SHOULD ANYONE, BE IT AN INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, CHARITY, ETC BE FORCED TO BUY ANYTHING BY THE GOVT?
They should not.
The government should NOT be able to mandate an organization, corporation, or anything else to offer a service it doesnt believe in, especially when it blatantly contradicts their faith.
People are free to go elsewhere if they want BC.
Necrosis argument is fucking stupid, the church isnt making it harder for anyone to get BC, if they want BC they shouldnt be going to try and get it from a group that religiously believes against it.
Its that simple.
His argument is not based on anything other than contempt for religion. Thats the only logical reason he's arguing like he is.
-
American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil
Feb. 10 at 5:21pm
You have to hand it to Barack Obama. He has unmasked in the most thoroughgoing way the despotic propensities of the administrative entitlements state and of the Democratic Party. And now he has done something similar to the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church. At the prospect that institutions associated with the Catholic Church would be required to offer to their employees health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients, the bishops, priests, and nuns scream bloody murder. But they raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and corporations, large and small, owned wholly or partially by Roman Catholics will be required to do the same. The freedom of the church as an institution to distance itself from that which its doctrines decry as morally wrong is considered sacrosanct. The liberty of its members – not to mention the liberty belonging to the adherents of other Christian sects, to Jews, Muslims, and non-believers – to do the same they are perfectly willing to sacrifice.
This inattention to the liberties of others is doubly scandalous (and I use this poignant term in full knowledge of its meaning within the Catholic tradition) – for there was a time when the Catholic hierarchy knew better. There was a time when Roman Catholicism was the great defender not only of its own liberty but of that of others. There was a time when the prelates recognized that the liberty of the church to govern itself in light of its guiding principles was inseparable from the liberty of other corporate bodies and institutions to do the same.
I do not mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church was in the more distant past a staunch defender of religious liberty. That it was not. Within its sphere, the Church demanded full authority. It is only in recent years that Rome has come to be fully appreciative of the larger principle.
I mean that, in the course of defending its autonomy against the secular power, the Roman Catholic Church asserted the liberty of other corporate bodies and even, in some measure, the liberty of individuals. To see what I have in mind one need only examine Magna Carta, which begins with King John’s pledge that
the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever.
Only after making this promise, does the King go on to say, “We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.” It is in this context that he affirms that “no scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid.” It is in this context that he pledges that “the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.” It is in this document that he promises that “no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” and that “to no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”
One will not find such a document in eastern Christendom or in the sphere where Sunni Islam is prevalent. It is peculiar to Western Christendom – and it was made possible by the fact that, Christian West, church and state were not co-extensive and none of the various secular powers was able to exert its authority over the church. There was within each political community in the Christian West an imperium in imperio – a power independent of the state that had no desire to replace the state but was fiercely resistant to its own subordination and aware that it could not hope to retain its traditional liberties if it did not lend a hand in defending the traditional liberties of others.
I am not arguing that the Church fostered limited government in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. In principle, the government that it fostered was unlimited in its scope. I am arguing, however, that the Church worked assiduously to hem in the authority of the Christian kings and that its success in this endeavor provided the foundation for the emergence of a parliamentary order. Indeed, I would go further. It was the Church that promoted the principles underpinning the emergence of parliaments. It did so by fostering the species of government that had emerged within the church itself. Given that the Church in the West made clerical celibacy one of its principal practices (whether it was honored in the breach or not), the hereditary principle could play no role in its governance. Inevitably, it resorted to elections. Monks elected abbots, the canons of cathedrals elected bishops, the college of cardinals elected the Pope.
The principle articulated in canon law — the only law common to all of Western Europe — to explain why these practices were proper was lifted from the Roman law dealing with the governance of waterways: “Quod omnes tangit,” it read, “ab omnibus tractari debeat: That which touches all should be dealt with by all.” In pagan antiquity, this meant that those upstream could not take all of the water and that those downstream had a say in its allocation. It was this principle that the clergymen who served as royal administrators insinuated into the laws of the kingdoms and petty republics of Europe. It was used to justify communal self-government. It was used to justify the calling of parliaments. And it was used to justify the provisions for self-governance contained within the corporate charters issued to cities, boroughs, and, in time, colonies. On the eve of the American Revolution, you will find it cited by John Dickinson in The Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer.
The quod omnes tangit principle was not the foundation of modern liberty, but it was its antecedent. And had there been no such antecedent, had kings not been hemmed in by the Church and its allies in this fashion, I very much doubt that there ever would have been a regime of limited government. In fact, had there not been a distinction both in theory and in fact between the secular and the spiritual authority, limited government would have been inconceivable.
The Reformation weakened the Church. In Protestant lands, it tended to strengthen the secular power and to promote a monarchical absolutism unknown to the Middle Ages. Lutheranism and Anglicanism were, in effect, Caesaro-Papist. In Catholic lands, it caused the spiritual power to shelter itself behind the secular power and become, in many cases, an appendage of that power. But the Reformation and the religious strife to which it gave rise also posed to the secular power an almost insuperable problem – how to secure peace and domestic tranquility in a world marked by sectarian competition. Limited government – i. e., a government limited in its scope – was the solution ultimately found, and John Locke was its proponent.
In the nascent American republic, this principle was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways. There were other amendments that made up what we now call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.
This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot. In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins – a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent – Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post. And they welcomed Social Security – which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well-being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They did not stop to think.
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.
At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package – that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs.
I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.
I do not mean to say that I would prefer that the bishops, nuns, and priests sit down and shut up. Barack Obama has once again done the friends of liberty a favor by forcing the friends of the administrative entitlements state to contemplate what they have wrought. Whether those brought up on the heresy that public provision is akin to charity will prove capable of thinking through what they have done remains unclear. But there is now a chance that this will take place, and there was a time – long ago, to be sure, but for an institution with the longevity possessed by the Catholic Church long ago was just yesterday – when the Church played an honorable role in hemming in the authority of magistrates and in promoting not only its own liberty as an institution but that of others similarly intent on managing their own affairs as individuals and as members of subpolitical communities.
In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.
This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, “to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything,” he added, "it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion – that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle.” In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.
I was reared a Catholic, wandered out of the Church, and stumbled back in more than thirteen years ago. I have been a regular attendee at mass since that time. I travel a great deal and frequently find myself in a diocese not my own. In these years, I have heard sermons articulating the case against abortion thrice – once in Louisiana at a mass said by the retired Archbishop there; once at the cathedral in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and two weeks ago in our parish in Hillsdale, Michigan. The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.
And there is more. I have not once in those years heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, and I have not once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.
There is another dimension to the failure of the American Church in the face of the sexual revolution. As, by now, everyone knows, in the 1980s, when Cardinal Bernadin was the chief leader of the American Church and the man most closely consulted when the Vatican selected its bishops, it became evident to the American prelates that they had a problem – that, in many a diocese, there were priests of a homoerotic orientation who were sexual predators – pederasts inclined to take advantage of young boys. They could have faced up to the problem at that time; they could have turned in the malefactors to the secular authorities; they could have prevented their further contact with the young. Instead, almost certainly at the instigation of Cardinal Bernadin, they opted for another policy. They hushed everything up, sent the priests off for psychological counseling, and reassigned them to other parishes or even dioceses – where they continued to prey on young boys. In the same period, a number of the seminaries in which young men were trained for the priesthood became, in effect, brothels – and nothing was done about any of this until the newspapers broke the story and the lawsuits began.
There is, I would suggest, a connection between the heretical doctrine propagated by Cardinal Bernadin in the Gannon Lecture and the difficulties that the American Church now faces. Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlements state will sooner or later become its victims.
Earlier today, Barack Obama offered the hierarchy “a compromise.” Under its terms, insurance companies offering healthcare coverage will be required to provide contraception and abortifacients, but this will not be mentioned in the contracts signed by those who run Catholic institutions. This “compromise” is, of course, a farce. It embodies a distinction where there is, in fact, no difference. It is a snare and a delusion, and I am confident that the Catholic Left, which is still dominant within the Church, will embrace it – for it would allow the bishops, priests, and nuns to save face while, in fact, paying for the contraception and abortifacients that the insurance companies will be required to provide. As if on cue, Sister Carol Keehan, a prominent Obamacare supporter who heads the Catholic Health Association, immediately issued a statement in which she announced that she is “pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.”
Perhaps, however, Barack Obama has shaken some members of the hierarchy from their dogmatic slumber. Perhaps, a few of them – or among younger priests some of their likely successors – have begun to recognize the logic inherent in the development of the administrative entitlements state. The proponents of Obamacare, with some consistency, pointed to Canada and to France as models. As anyone who has attended mass in Montreal or Paris can testify, the Church in both of these places is filled with empty pews. There is, in fact, not a single country in the social democratic sphere where either the Catholic Church or a Protestant Church is anything but moribund. This is by no means fortuitous. When entitlements stand in for charity and the Social Gospel is preached in place of the Word of God, heaven on earth becomes the end, and Christianity goes by the boards.
It took a terrible scandal and a host of lawsuits to get the American Church to rid itself of the pederast priests and clean up its seminaries. Perhaps the tyrannical ambitions of Barack Obama will occasion a rethinking of the social-justice agenda. The ball is now in the court of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who has welcomed the President's gesture without indicating whether it is adequate. Upon reflection, he can accept the fig leaf that President Obama has offered him. Or he can put Sister Keehan and her supporters in their place and fight. If he wants to regain an iota of the moral authority that the Church possessed before 1973, he will do the latter. The hour is late. Next time, the masters of the administrative entitlements state won’t even bother to offer the hierarchy a fig leaf. They know servility when they see it.
UPDATE: Friday night, shortly after I posted this piece, as Anne Coletta pointed out in Comment 5 below, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a carefully worded statement critical of the fig leaf President Obama offered them. In the meantime, the Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, applauded "the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties."
-
Bishops Reject Obama's 'Accommodation' - President's political hemorrhaging to continue.
American Spectator ^ | 2.13.12 | G. Tracy Mehan, III
Posted on February 13, 2012 10:12:20 PM EST by neverdem
The American bishops have, with alacrity, rejected President Obama's proposed "accommodation" on the contraception mandate in no uncertain terms. Their response came before the sun had set on the very day of his announcement.
Noting that the "proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions," the Catholic hierarchy virtually guaranteed more political hemorrhaging for the White House.
The bishops indicated that they were not consulted in advance of the President's announcement and had just received information about it "for the first time this morning [Friday]."
"The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services," stated the bishops in their statement released through the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCB).
President Obama's proposal for an "accommodation," not a compromise, claimed to shift the costs of the contraceptive services to the insurance carriers of the religious institutions as if they would provide such services for free for an indefinite period of time.
The proposal is really no accommodation at all since, as the Wall Street Journal opined in a lead editorial ("Immaculate Contraception," February 11-12, 2012), prices will eventually find an equilibrium, i.e., the carriers will eventually price their policy premiums accordingly which, in turn, means their customers, the religious institutions, will still be footing the bill.
"So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now write a rule that says the best things in life are 'free,' including contraception," wrote the Journal. "Thus, a political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one -- in other words, behold the soul..."
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail Religion
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
WH: We Are Done Negotiating With Catholics
Creative Minority Report ^ | February 13, 2012 | Patrick Madrid
Posted on February 13, 2012 7:48:03 PM EST by NYer
The great and powerful Oz has spoken, 'negotiation' time is over, time for you to ditch your silly religious beliefs and do what we say.
Obama chief of staff: No more compromise, contraceptive rule is done deal
Despite renewed statements of concern by Catholic leaders, the Obama administration is done negotiating and will finalize its plan requiring insurance companies to provide free contraception to women working and studying at religious institutions, President Obama's chief of staff said Sunday.
Jacob Lew told "Fox News Sunday" that the compromise offered last week to address objections by the Catholic Church is clear and consistent with the president's "very deep belief that a woman has a right to all forms of preventive health care, including contraception."
"We have set out our policy," Lew said. "We are going to finalize it in the final rules, but I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties, and we think that's the right approach."
For all you Catholic liberals out there, this is how the Marxists you elected do 'dialogue.' I would say I told you so but...actually...
I told you so.
The only, ONLY answer is the complete destruction of the mandate and Obamacare. There is no other way.
-
February 13, 2012
Dear Friends,
Last Friday President Obama attempted to respond to the strong objections that have been raised by the Catholic Church and other faith communities to the Department of Health and Human Services’ unprecedented mandate that would force religious institutions, in violation of their religious beliefs, to provide and pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization. Unfortunately, the “accommodation” that the President announced still presents grave moral concerns and continues to violate our constitutionally protected religious liberty.
The administration’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, particularly in the definition of who is and who is not a religious employer. Despite last month’s unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding the right of religious institutions to choose whom they appoint to teach their faith and carry out their mission, the administration remains unwavering in its attempt to assert control in matters of religion. Our Catholic schools, social service organizations, hospitals and universities are no less Catholic than our churches, but apparently, these institutions are not considered to be Catholic enough to meet the definition required by the HHS mandate for a religious exemption.
As for the insurance-related provisions themselves, the federal mandate remains essentially unchanged. The only “fix” offered by the President was to propose that insurance companies, instead of religious institutions directly, be required to cover procedures and products they find objectionable at no cost in their insurance policies. Regardless of how it is characterized, shifting the cost of these drugs and procedures to insurance companies does not make their requirement any less objectionable or lessen the infringement on our religious liberty and rights of conscience.
For example, President Obama’s announcement does not provide any accommodation for the Archdiocese of Washington. Like many large organizations, both for-profit and non-profit, this archdiocese does not purchase group health insurance from insurance companies. In order to provide insurance consistent with our religious beliefs, our health benefit plan is a self-insured plan that extends coverage to 3,600 employees. This means that the archdiocese is the insurer and the archdiocese covers all claim costs. There is no insurance company involved. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the HHS mandate, self-insured organizations like ours are treated the same as regular insurance providers. This means that like Aetna or Blue Cross, the archdiocese and other self-insured religious organizations would be required to both provide and pay for drugs and procedures we consider morally wrong in our employee health plans.
Even for religious institutions who are employers and who purchase group health insurance from insurance companies, the problem created by the mandate remains unresolved. Those institutions will still be compelled to purchase insurance policies that provide free abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization. Since these additional drugs and procedures will be automatically provided by the insurer by virtue of the insurance policy (even though not expressly listed in the policy), it is no response to our moral concerns to say that religious employers will not have to pay for them because their insurance companies will. Catholic institutions will be forced to pay for and maintain policies that enable their employees to receive insurance coverage of products and procedures that violate our religious convictions.
At this point, it appears that nothing has really changed. Religious employers are still being compelled to provide insurance plans that offer free abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraceptives in violation of their religious freedom.
What is at stake here is a question of human freedom. The authors of the Bill of Rights enshrined freedom of religion as our nation’s first and founding principle. We should not be reduced to petitioning the government for rights that the Constitution already guarantees. The only complete solution to the problem that this mandate poses for religious liberty is for Congress to pass legislation to protect our freedom. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act is one of several bills that have been introduced for this very purpose.
We cannot become complacent or allow ourselves to be distracted by incomplete proposals presented as definitive solutions. The Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty is working on a formal response and action steps. In the weeks and months ahead, please continue to pray and share this information with others so that we may reverse the effects of this misguided regulation.
In the hope that this information is helpful and with every good wish, I am
Faithfully in Christ,
Donald Cardinal Wuerl
Archbishop of Washington
-
A debate about contraception or religious freedom? No, a debate about economic choice
Fight between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration is really a showdown over mandated insurance
By Michael D. Tanner / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Lost in the uproar over the Obama administration’s requirement that religiously affiliated organizations provide employees with insurance that covers contraceptives, including some abortifacients, is the fact that this rule is simply one more symptom of the fundamental problem with Obamacare. That problem is not papered over by the administration’s latest “compromise.”
First, let’s be clear: This issue never had anything whatsoever to do with women’s health. There is nothing that prevents any woman who wants contraceptives from purchasing them. No one is threatening to take that right away, and no one should.
The debate does not even have anything to do with whether or not women can get insurance that covers contraceptives. Most insurance plans already do so, and when they don’t, women can purchase a rider that provides the additional coverage.
What this debate was really about is who pays for that coverage. And as much as some would like to obscure it, there is a difference between having the freedom to buy something for yourself and forcing someone else to pay for it.
Obamacare creates this issue because it includes both an individual and employer mandate. The employer mandate requires all businesses with 50 or more employees to provide insurance to their workers starting in 2014. The individual mandate requires that anyone who doesn’t receive insurance through work (or through a government program like Medicare or Medicaid) purchase insurance for themselves. Individuals and businesses who fail to comply will be fined.
But these mandates do more than simply require that businesses and individuals purchase insurance. The insurance they buy must meet the government’s definition of acceptable insurance. Remember the President’s assurances that if you had insurance today and you like it, you could keep it? Not true.
That means that even if a business provides insurance to its workers today, it won’t satisfy the mandate unless that insurance includes all the benefits that the government says it should. Some of these mandated benefits are costly requirements for such things as mental health services, alcohol and drug rehabilitation, pharmaceutical products, and dental and vision care for children. Now, the administration has determined that it must include contraceptives.
That would not really change with the proffered compromise. The latest offer would ostensibly shift the cost of providing contraceptive coverage from the employer to insurers, but would still leave the federal government dictating what benefits must be included in insurance coverage.
From the beginning, the debate over health care reform has been about power and control. On one side, the Obama administration has sought to centralize control over health care in the federal government. The government decides whether a business must provide insurance or whether an individual must purchase it, and what type of insurance that must be. The government decides what treatments should be available. The government decides how much things should cost and who should pay for them.
A better approach would to empower health care consumers to make their own decisions. Instead of mandating that employers provide a government-designed insurance package, we need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable. We should give individuals the same tax break for buying their own insurance as they currently get for employer-provided insurance.
That would make it easier for an employee of a religious organization who wanted an insurance plan covering contraceptives to take the money that the organization is currently paying for insurance and buy the policy that he or she wants, rather than a plan provided by the employer. The worker gets the coverage he or she wants, and the religious organization doesn’t have to directly pay for contraceptive coverage. Everyone wins.
Of course, that still leaves workers subject to state insurance mandates. For example, about half of the states currently require some types of contraceptive coverage (although generally such requirements are far more limited than the new federal mandate). Therefore, workers should be free to purchase insurance across state lines, allowing them to shop for plans that include as many or as few benefits as they wish to pay for.
These reforms would force insurance companies to compete in a free market, bringing down health care costs, and lowering insurance premiums. But more importantly, it would mean that decisions about whether to purchase coverage for contraceptives, mental health, drug and alcohol therapy or anything else would be made by individual consumers — not the government.
Whether or not the administration’s compromise proposal manages to assuage the Catholic Church, the underlying issues will not change. As long as Obamacare puts the government in charge of our health care decisions, our choices will be dictated by politicians.
That — and not birth control — is really what this debate is about.
Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of “Bad Medicine: A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/a-debate-contraception-religious-freedom-a-debate-economic-choice-article-1.1021936#ixzz1mMT4J6KC
-
Birth Control Yes, Government Control No Intolerance is at the heart of the ObamaCare mandate..Article Comments (185) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ ».Email Print Save ↓ More .
.smaller Larger By JAMES TARANTO
New York Times editorials are often worth reading--stop laughing, we're serious!--because they provide a window into the mindset of the liberal left, the ideological tendency that dominates many major cultural institutions and, for at least the next 11 months, the executive branch of the federal government.
Times editorialists write for people who think alike and seek reinforcement of their prejudices. Unconstrained by any need for compromise or political sensitivity, they provide an honest distillation of left-liberalism, something you can't always get from politicians who need to appeal broadly enough to win electoral majorities or even from the leaders of other institutions that serve a more diverse audience or clientele. What you learn from reading Times editorialists is that the fundamental attitude of left-liberalism today is one of contemptuous ignorance.
Thus after President Obama made a symbolic concession to religious liberty last week, the Times once again employed scare quotes to sneer at the entire idea. This time it was in the very first phrase of its Saturday editorial:
In response to a phony crisis over "religious liberty" engendered by the right, President Obama seems to have stood his ground on an essential principle--free access to birth control for any woman. . . .
Nonetheless, it was dismaying to see the president lend any credence to the misbegotten notion that providing access to contraceptives violated the freedom of any religious institution. Churches are given complete freedom by the Constitution to preach that birth control is immoral, but they have not been given the right to laws that would deprive their followers or employees of the right to disagree with that teaching.
In truth, no one denies that individuals have "the right to disagree with that teaching," and the religious institutions that object to the mandate do not claim the authority to police their employees' private lives or opinions. Rather, they oppose the government's attempt to coerce them into facilitating the practices they preach against.
The editorial continues by assuring the Times's readers that everyone who disagrees is dishonest, because the Times knows what they really think: "The president's solution, however, demonstrates that those still angry about the mandate aren't really concerned about religious freedom; they simply don't like birth control and want to reduce access to it." The evidence for this assertion is laughable:
Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, has introduced a bill that would allow any employer to refuse to cover birth control by claiming to have a religious objection. The House speaker, John Boehner, also supports the concept. Rick Santorum said Friday that no insurance policy should cover it, apparently unaware that many doctors prescribe birth control pills for medical reasons other than contraception.
The Rubio and Boehner examples, as described here, offer zero support for the Times's claim that opponents "don't like birth control" and contradict the claim that they "aren't really concerned about religious freedom." The Rubio bill would give broader recognition to religious freedom than an exemption limited to religious institutions.
Podcast
James Taranto on birth control and government control.
.As for Santorum, our sense is that he has serious, and quite reasonable, doubts that birth control is good for society, But let's stipulate for the sake of argument that he doesn't "like birth control." First of all, so what? The Times editorialists may believe that birth control is valuable or beneficial, but it's weird that they get bent out of shape merely because other people don't like the stuff. Second, even if the Times accurately characterizes the former senator's views on birth control, it is both a non sequitur and, knowing Santorum, a completely preposterous assertion that he isn't "really concerned about religious freedom."
This columnist likes birth control a lot. To our mind, it is one of the greatest conveniences of modern life. As we are not Catholic, we don't share the church's moral objections to abortifacient drugs or sterilization procedures. But as we are American, we care a lot about religious liberty, and about liberty more generally. Thus we view the birth-control mandate as a particular outrage and ObamaCare more generally as a monstrosity.
.Times columnist Gail Collins went off message, beginning her column on the same day as the editorial: "It's not really about birth control." We got a good laugh imagining left-liberals who look to the Times for guidance, driving themselves crazy trying to reconcile the dueling messages.
But Collins is right that it's not about birth control. It's about freedom from government coercion. She wants more coercion; as she puts it sneeringly: "National standards, national coverage--all of that offends the Tea Party ethos that wants to keep the federal government out of every aspect of American life that does not involve bombing another country." But at least she has some rudimentary understanding of the other side of the debate.
Not so Nicholas Kristof, who in his column yesterday treated us to this magnificently funny display of un-self-awareness:
I may not be as theologically sophisticated as American bishops, but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.
The debates about pelvic politics over the last week sometimes had a patronizing tone . . .
Yeah, tell us about it! Physician, heal thyself. But the most revealing Kristof quote is this one: "The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can."
This prompted an incandescently furious response from Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
Nicholas Kristof's statement is light years beyond the President in disrespect for religious liberty.
Where would we find what Kristof describes as "the basic principle of American life," when he goes on to state that principle with language as chilling as "we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can"?
The language of accommodation is almost as old as the Constitution itself, but it was never framed as Kristof frames it--certainly not by the founders who spoke of "inalienable rights" granted to human beings by the Creator's endowment.
Can you imagine any of the founders speaking as Kristof writes, of an intention to "try to respect religious beliefs"?
Mr. Kristof is a serious man, and he raises serious issues in this column. But with this one simplistic and condescending sentence he throws religious liberty under the bus and reveals what makes sense to so many in the secular elite.
They will try their best, they promise, to respect our religious beliefs, and to "accommodate them where we can."
That's it. Don't dare ask for anything more.
Religious liberty--no scare quotes for us--is one of America's basic principles, the first freedom in the Bill of Rights. The separation of church and state protects religious minorities, and nonreligious ones, from the coercive imposition of religious law. It is also a bulwark against a secular government's impositions on private conscience.
Albert Mohler is a Baptist. This columnist is an agnostic. But we're with Mike Huckabee, another Baptist, who said last week: "We're all Catholics now."
ObamiFact
"The Obama campaign is putting out a call for its grass-roots network to join the battle for the White House," according to a Denver Post summary of wire reports:
Today, the president's reelection team will unveil a trio of websites dedicated to providing supporters with information on the president's record--and more than a little dirt on his Republican rivals. The campaign has named it Obama's "Truth Team," and the goal is to arm millions of surrogates with the facts, figures and talking points they need to engage in ground-level political combat--on their Twitter and Facebook feeds and in conversations with friends and neighbors.
The websites are likely to accelerate the already-bitter, ideological migration of the fight for the White House on the Web. Of the three Truth Team portals, just one, KeepingHisWord.com, could be described as positive in tone, listing Obama's accomplishments. The other two sites are far more negative. AttackWatch.com aims to rebut political attacks against Obama. KeepingGOPHonest.com allows Obama supporters to play offense, providing damaging material about his rivals.
The widely mocked AttackWatch has actually been around since September. But the whole "Truth Team" concept reminds us of the"fact checking" genre of journalism--or perhaps we should say "journalism," since the Obama campaign effort underscores its similarity with partisan advocacy.
Great Moments in Public Education
In the wake of a much-publicized sex-abuse scandal at a California public elementary school, Slate's Brian Palmer asks how common sexual abuse in schools is:
The best available study suggests that about 10 percent of students suffer some form of sexual abuse during their school careers. In the 2000 report, commissioned by the American Association of University Women, surveyors asked students between eighth and 11th grades whether they had ever experienced inappropriate sexual conduct at school. The list of such conduct included lewd comments, exposure to pornography, peeping in the locker room, and sexual touching or grabbing. Around one in 10 students said they had been the victim of one or more such things from a teacher or other school employee, and two-thirds of those reported the incident involved physical contact.
If these numbers are representative of the student population nationwide, 4.5 million students currently in grades K-12 have suffered some form of sexual abuse by an educator, and more than 3 million have experienced sexual touching or assault. This number would include both inappropriate romantic relationships between teachers and upperclassmen, and outright pedophilia.
These statistics are uncertain, however, because no one has ever designed a nationwide study for the expressed purpose of measuring the prevalence of sexual abuse by educators.
The AAUW numbers sound exaggerated to us, like those studies that purport to find some huge proportion of women have been raped, but "rape" turns out to be defined so broadly as to include a sexual encounter that occasioned later regret.
But Palmer cites other studies that put the figure closer to 4%, still enough to constitute a very widespread problem. Yet you hardly ever hear about the scandal of abuse in public schools the way you do about, say the Catholic Church. We guess this is one of those benefits the teachers unions would like to keep.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577221250667890244.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h
-
Charles Kadlec, Contributor
Op/Ed|2/13/2012 @ 4:35PM |3,398
The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
In one of the boldest, most audacious moves ever made by a President of the United States, President Barack Obama is on the brink of successfully rendering moot the very first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). If he forces the Catholic Church to comply with the Health and Human Services ruling to provide its employees with insurance that covers activities the Church has long held sinful — abortion via the morning after pill, sterilization and contraceptives — then the precedent is clear: when religious beliefs conflict with government decrees, religion must yield.
The story line that President Obama miscalculated in picking this fight with the Catholic Church vastly underestimates the man’s political skill and ambition. His initial approval of the ruling requiring the Church pay for abortion drugs and sterilization was but the first step in a calculated strategy to further his goal of transforming America.
President Obama chose to pick this fight with the Catholic Church by choosing to release the regulations first, and then, as he explained in last Friday’s statement to the press, spend “the next year (before the new regulations take effect) to find an equitable solution that would protect religious liberty and insure that every woman has access to the care that she needs.” The alternative would have been to find the “equitable solution” before announcing the regulations. In other words, this entire political fire storm is a set-up by the Administration.
The original HHS ruling put the Catholic Church into the position of choosing one of these two options:
Option A: The Church complies with the law and violates its own teachings and principles of faith. Such a choice would strip the Church of its legitimacy and make it a de facto vassal of the state. In this case, the ability of the Church to challenge the government’s political power is vastly reduced, if not completely destroyed. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.
Option B: The Church as a matter of conscience refuses to obey the law, and stops offering health insurance to its employees. In this case, the Church gets crushed by hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. As a consequence, its ability to fulfill its religious mission by funding hospitals, schools and charities is sharply reduced if not destroyed. As the Church is forced to withdraw from its active role in civil society, those who believe in government will rush to fill the void. Faith, charity and civil society are marginalized. Government wins.
The risk to President Obama was the Church would create “Option C” and engage in a broad political battle to force the full repeal of the ruling or, if that fails, the defeat of President Obama in the November election followed by the repeal of ObamaCare. Under Option C, government’s power is reduced. Faith, charity and civil society win.
President Obama’s political skill is demonstrated by his anticipation and preparation for just this outcome. First, he has used the issue to energize his political base by positioning his Administration as the defender of “women’s health” and attacking his opponents for taking him up on his implicit dare to make it an issue in the Presidential campaign.
Second, last Friday’s decision to “retreat,” as proclaimed by the weekend Wall Street Journal’s page 1 headline and find a way to “accommodate” religious freedom, was pure subterfuge. The notion of retreat or compromise is pure spin. The President’s operative statement reflected zero tolerance for those that would disagree with his policies.
He announced: (the imperial) “we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains (emphasis added). But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.
Got that? The insurance company will be required to offer the service, but will be forbidden from explicitly billing the Catholic organization for providing this benefit. Such a construct is a fraud. Of course the employer will have to pay for these benefits. And, even if they didn’t, the Church is still being forced to support what it believes are sinful acts. This “equitable solution” is simply an attempt to soften the blow of forcing the Catholic Church to accommodate the dictates of the now supreme federal government. It’s a face saving version of Option A.
Before our very eyes, President Obama is on the verge of establishing the principle that the right to religious freedom comes not from our Creator, but from those who rule us. A government endowed right granted to women now trumps our unalienable right to act in accordance with our religious beliefs and conscience. Not only does this overturn the First Amendment, it also tramples the nation’s founding principles as announced in the Declaration of Independence. Such an achievement would be the true audacity of power.
The fundamental question is whether the Catholic Church, and by extension, individual Americans have to engage in activities according to the rulings of this and future Presidents, or are we free to live our lives as we choose as long as we do not harm another. Are we free to engage in long standing religious practices that have never before been deemed unlawful, or has the federal government established a de facto state “religion” that it is prepared to enforce through the full coercive power of its financial resources and the imposition of financial penalties.
If the Catholic Church and the American people choose the face saving “Option A” instead of “Option C,” then President Obama will have transformed America. We may be allowed the illusion of exercising our freedom, but in truth, we will be subjects in ObamaLand, required to do the bidding of this and future Presidents in the name of some higher, collective good.
However, the Catholic Church can turn the tables on the President by taking Option A off the table with a humble statement of principal that in the matters of religious practices and conscience, there is a higher authority than government Who it chooses to obey. If President Obama prevails and unleashes the full force of the federal government against the Church, the cost will be the closing of Catholic schools, hospitals and the loss of social services that play a vital part in communities across the nation. Such a stand would make clear to the American people that the alternative to religious freedom would be a mortal wound to our civil liberties and a complete disruption of civil society.
I am not a Catholic, nor do I believe in the Church’s opposition to contraception. But I pray that the leadership of the Catholic Church will have the faith and courage to stand for its core beliefs and use all of its moral power and political influence to defeat the President’s edict. I pray they will reach out across the political spectrum to people of all faiths, agnostics and atheists in the name of religious freedom and individual liberty. By so doing, they, and the institution of the Catholic Church, will have my love and respect for the rest of my life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is available online at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/13/the-audacity-of-power-president-obama-vs-the-catholic-church
-
Obama's Dupes: The President's Pro-Life Catholic Suckers
By Paul Kengor on 2.14.12 @ 6:07AM
A wake-up call for Kathy Dahlkemper and Democrats for Life.
On March 24, 2010, President Obama, flagged by 13 beaming pro-life Democratic members of Congress, led by Michigan's Bart Stupak, signed an executive order that he promised would prevent abortion funding in his "healthcare reform" bill. These were the infamous "Bart Stupak Democrats" -- many of them Roman Catholics -- who had placed their faith not in their bishops or pro-lifers who urged them not to vote for "Obama-care," but in Barack Obama.
It was an executive order that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, LifeNews.com, Priests for Life, Susan B. Anthony List, and every reputable pro-life organization or leader said would be ineffective in preventing abortion funding under "Obama-care." These pro-life Democrats, however, trusted not these lifetime fighters for life but a man who as U.S. senator had co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, the most radical piece of pro-abortion legislation in the history of the republic; who, his first week as president, signed an executive order reversing the Mexico City policy, thus publicly funding Planned Parenthood International; who signed an executive order providing taxpayer funding of the deliberate dissection and destruction of human embryos; and who has done far more still. Before all of that, this guarantor of healthcare for every American repeatedly refused (as a state senator in Illinois) to provide mandatory healthcare for babies that somehow survived abortion procedures. In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama hailed America's largest abortion provider as a "safety net."
This, of course, is just a short list of Obama's abortion abominations. An ongoing list compiled by LifeNews.com (click here) is nothing short of astonishing.
It was upon this man, Barack Obama, that pro-life Democrats pinned their hopes. It was quite a display, a study in human nature and the depths of self-delusion.
Of these Democrats, most were defeated in their bid for re-election in November 2010. Here at The American Spectator and elsewhere, I focused on the case of Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, a Pennsylvania Democrat who happened to be my congresswoman, and a genuinely pro-life Catholic Democrat. Dahlkemper's home base was Erie, Pennsylvania, a traditionally blue-collar, Catholic area. She was successfully challenged by Mike Kelly, an auto dealer from Butler, Pennsylvania, and a former Notre Dame football player -- and a faithful Roman Catholic.
In his successful attempt to unseat Dahlkemper, Kelly was not shy about highlighting Dahlkemper's pro-life gullibility. Neither was the Susan B. Anthony List, which targeted her among the unwitting pro-life betrayers that needed to be defeated in November 2010. Dahlkemper was shocked and outraged at the audacity of the Susan B. Anthony List. The group made her district one of its summer tour-bus stops. It sponsored giant billboards reminding voters of Dahlkemper's Obama-care vote.
The congresswoman was also targeted by Americans United for Life (AUL). This, too, she deemed unfair. An October 8 article in the Sharon Herald, one of the larger newspapers in her district, reported that attorneys for the Dahlkemper campaign were demanding that Erie radio stations pull AUL ads that (accurately) asserted that the congresswoman's vote for Obamacare would result in "the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions ever." The Dahlkemper campaign blasted the ads as "slanderous" and "inaccurate."
"To me, it's morally reprehensible that they're using this to win an election," said an incredulous Dahlkemper. "I assumed after I worked so hard that the pro-life camp would be with me."
If that statement wasn't amazing enough, Dahlkemper added this stunner: "I think we'll look back on this bill and we'll see a reduction in abortions in this country. It's the most pro-life piece of legislation ever passed by Congress in this country."
Yes, she was talking about Obamacare. You can't make this up.
One wonders what Dahlkemper is thinking right now, as the radically pro-abortion president she so admired and trusted mandates that Dahlkemper and her fellow Catholics and their Church provide abortion drugs, contraception, sterilization, and no doubt more to come. That mandate comes directly from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., "Obamacare") that Dahlkemper voted for.
Well, Dahlkemper recently hinted at an answer, courtesy of a November press release from Democrats for Life, devoted supporters of Dahlkemper. "I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic colleges and universities to pay for contraception," said Dahlkemper. "We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the president will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage."
We elect members of Congress for their judgment. We also vote them out for their failed judgment. It looks like the voters in my district know how to make a correction.
It isn't only Kathy Dahlkemper and other "Stupak Democrats" who are eating crow. In that same press release was this assessment from the executive director of Democrats for Life, an organization of rapidly dwindling clients: "The [Obama] administration is already unfairly under attack by Catholic conservatives who are using the proposed final rule to spread anti-Obama sentiment to lay Catholics," said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life. "The administration has no intention of forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs. It does not make any sense from a public policy perspective and it certainly is not smart politically to alienate Catholic voters."
Kristen Day said that in November. Ms. Day has a good heart, a pro-life heart -- just like Kathy Dahlkemper -- but she, too, has been badly deceived by America's chief Democrat.
Again, why would that surprise anyone?
All of this makes perfect sense. Barack Obama is, above all, first and foremost, a radical, pro-abortion ideologue. He could care less about the "public policy perspective" and alienating Catholic voters. This is where Obama's heart is: from public funding of Planned Parenthood to embryo destruction to abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals.
As I write, the latest statement from Kristen Day and Democrats for Life is that they are "deeply disappointed" in the actions of President Obama. They urge Obama to "reconsider."
Sure, good luck.
It's a shame, a crying shame, that it takes this much for pro-life Democrats to learn. Ronald Reagan famously said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Maybe it's time that Democrats for Life leave the Democratic Party -- for life.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Facebook| Twitter
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/14/obamas-dupes-the-presidents-pr
Follow us: ADVERTISEMENT
-
12 state attorneys general: we will file lawsuit against Obama mandate ‘in weeks, not months’
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/state-attorneys-general-we-will-file-lawsuit-against-obamacare-mandate-in-w
^ | 2/14/2012 | Ben Johnson
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 13, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Within weeks, the top lawyers in a dozen states may file a federal lawsuit against the Obama administration’s controversial requirement that all insurance plans include access to abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization, the attorney general of Nebraska told LifeSiteNews.
Jon Bruning told LifeSiteNews.com that 12 states had signed onto a scathing critique of the mandate and were preparing to take more serious action. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning
On Friday, ten state attorneys general addressed a scathing letter to President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. “Not only is the proposed contraceptive coverage mandate for religious employers bad policy, it is unconstitutional,” they wrote. “We believe it represents an impermissible violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment virtually unparalleled in American history” and “conflicts with the most basic elements of the freedoms of religion, speech, and association, as provided under the First Amendment.”
They feared the president’s policy would force faithful religious institutions “to cease activities of incalculable value to their employees, constituents, and, indeed, society as a whole.”
“Should this unconstitutional mandate be promulgated, we are prepared to vigorously oppose it in court.”
The attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas signed the letter. Bruning told LifeSiteNews two additional states had joined the cause over the weekend.
“This is about much more than contraception. This is about the federal government once again stepping in and trying to tell people how to live their lives,” Bruning said. “I’m very troubled by it – not only troubled, I’m willing to use the litigation power of the state of Nebraska to file yet another lawsuit against the federal government, because it’s really our only option to push back.”
He said he is currently coordinating the next step of action with his fellow AGs.
“I think it will be weeks, not months, before we file a lawsuit,” he said.
Other signatories voiced their opposition to the mandate.
Last week, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an amicus brief in pending cases filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian College, and the Eternal World Television Network (EWTN) against the new health care rule.
Bruning said while the group may file its own friend of the court brief to support these cases, “it’s looking like litigation is the only way to stop the Obama administration.”
“When a state or a group of states is involved in litigation,” Bruning told LifeSiteNews, “it carries more weight than any particular private plaintiff, because of the role of that states in our constitutional structure. “
Pam Bondi of Florida, a Tea Party favorite elected in 2010, wrote in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com, “I am proud to stand with my colleagues against this latest example of unconstitutional overreach by the Obama administration. All Americans – of any religion, or no religion at all – have a stake in protecting rights of conscience.”
Louisiana’s James D. “Buddy” Caldwell said on Friday, “The federal government simply cannot force individuals and organizations to buy a product that contradicts their religious beliefs. This represents a clear violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment virtually unparalleled in American history.”
“The proposed mandate would clearly be an unconstitutional burden on religious entities that currently provide health care to their employees,” Attorney General Alan Wilson of South Carolina said in a statement. “Such an action would be an unprecedented and troubling coercion of organizations and individuals to act contrary to their religious beliefs.”
Bruning, who is leading a 26-state coalition in a lawsuit opposing the president’s health care bill, told LifeSiteNews he sees the two cases as intimately related. “I do think Congress has exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause with the Obama health care law,” he said. “This issue regarding the mandate that insurance companies must carry coverage for abortifacients and birth control and sterilization is an offshoot of that ObamaCare case.”
-
can't run a decent canidate so they have to stoop to this,the dumbing down of the repub party :'( ;D
-
can't run a decent canidate so they have to stoop to this,the dumbing down of the repub party :'( ;D
Huh? Obama was the communist puke who picked this fight.
-
can't run a decent canidate so they have to stoop to this,the dumbing down of the repub party :'( ;D
The lack of a decent candidate really makes me angy.
Why the hell is it so hard to find someone closer to the middle? Why is it always about the extreme stupid shit like abortion?
Why the hell is someone like Paul tossed to the side, when he has the most common sense and logical approach to governing?
Is it just because people get more incensed by things like Abortion and Contraception? I mean, these issues are NOTHING compared to the economy and government spending, yet they seem to take center stage for teh GOP when deciding on a candidate.
It makes no fucking sense to me.
-
the right has gone to far right,they have to go to the middle
-
the right has gone to far right,they have to go to the middle
Huh? What is the middle?
-
left of the nut jobs ;D
-
left of the nut jobs ;D
Give me policy examples.
The GOP is a joke since they are obama lite.
Obama is pushing communism and you think the repubs should go towards that?
-
the right has gone to far right,they have to go to the middle
Its not just the right.
The left has gone so far to the left that theyre flirting with a completely different tyle of government alltogether.
Most of the politicians on the left tout almost socialistic views on government and seems like they all favor restricting liberties in order to not hurt peoples feelings. Which is bullshit.
-
Its not just the right.
The left has gone so far to the left that theyre flirting with a completely different tyle of government alltogether.
Most of the politicians on the left tout almost socialistic views on government and seems like they all favor restricting liberties in order to not hurt peoples feelings. Which is bullshit.
your right both have to go to the middle
-
your right both have to go to the middle
What is the "middle" ? Funny too I dont remember you saying that when thughbama was pushing obamacare, cap and trade, etc.
-
the problem is my middle and your middle are not the same, you think calling a pres names like communist traitor and marxist sleeper cell pofs obama is the middle,to most that's a far right nutjob
-
the problem is my middle and your middle are not the same, you think calling a pres names like communist traitor and marxist sleeper cell pofs obama is the middle,to most that's a far right nutjob
Like I give a damn about people in the so called "middle" who have no core values, ideas, or foundation for their belief system beyond what is spoon fed them by the idiot box?
-
well dummy the middle decides the elections,that's why the repubs are where their at with these canidates
-
well dummy the middle decides the elections,that's why the repubs are where their at with these canidates
Yeah 2010 never happened genius.
-
Yeah 2010 never happened genius.
old news,do you realise their approval rating is in the single digits
-
old news,do you realise their approval rating is in the single digits
Congress always poll low. Nothing new.
The so called "middle' are often a bunch of mindless people who sway like the wind w whatever the idiot box tells them to believe.
-
Like I give a damn about people in the so called "middle" who have no core values, ideas, or foundation for their belief system beyond what is spoon fed them by the idiot box?
When I think of middle, I think of more concerned with pressing things like the economy, government spending, protecting personal liberties, etc.
Too far right and too far left and both sides start doing the same things - I.E. taking rights (abortion, freedom of speech, politicial correctness), spending (entitlement programs, unnecessary wars, etc), etc
Middle to me means being focused on whats best for the country, on respecting both sides right to choose how to live their lives, making decisions based on common sense for both sides without infringing on either's right to live their lives the way they see fit as long as it doesnt harm others rights to do the same, without letting extreme ideological views get in the way of letting the people have their personal freedoms. (I.E., one side trying to force church orgs to offer BC when its against their fundamental beliefs, or the other side trying to say that 2 people of the same sex that love each other cannot be joined in a union)
Thats what the middle is to me. I know thats easier said than done, but it seems we let the loudest people dictate what happens in this country, especially when the loudest people are usually the minority, and those are usually the same people trying to impose their will on others.
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-birth-control-opponents-liberty-for-employers-employees-can-go-fck-themselves/
:D :D
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-birth-control-opponents-liberty-for-employers-employees-can-go-fck-themselves/
:D :D
Employers should not have rights blackass?
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-on-birth-control-opponents-liberty-for-employers-employees-can-go-fck-themselves/
:D :D
Why should the government be able to mandate what Employers offer? That is one of the big deciding factors when I was job searching, were the benefits. The company that offered benefits more to my liking, I took. Those that didnt coincide with my wants/needs, I didnt. (Unless I had to have work, then it was a non issue). All these people bitching dont HAVE to work for the church. They know who theyre working for. There is NO REASON in hell that a government should tell a church org that they have to offer a service that they do not believe in. Its a fundamental right of EVERYONE in this country to run their lives (and business) how they see fit, as long as it doesnt hurt or unfairly fuck someone else.
There is nothing to stop someone from going and getting BC somewhere else. Saying that the Church should be forced to offer BC is basically saying you think the government should be able to tell you how to live your lives.
-
Obama's revised HHS mandate won't solve problems, USCCB president says
Catholic New Service ^ | February 14, 2012 | Francis X. Rocca
ROME (CNS) -- Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan of New York said Feb. 13 that President Barack Obama's revision to the contraceptive mandate in the health reform law did nothing to change the U.S. bishops' opposition to what they regard as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.
"We bishops are pastors, we're not politicians, and you can't compromise on principle," said Cardinal-designate Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "And the goal posts haven't moved and I don't think there's a 50-yard line compromise here," he added.
"We're in the business of reconciliation, so it's not that we hold fast, that we're stubborn ideologues, no. But we don't see much sign of any compromise," he said.
"What (Obama) offered was next to nothing. There's no change, for instance, in these terribly restrictive mandates and this grossly restrictive definition of what constitutes a religious entity," he said. "The principle wasn't touched at all."
Announced Feb. 10, Obama's revision of the Department of Health and Human Services' contraceptive mandate left intact the restrictive definition of a religious entity and would shift the costs of contraceptives from the policyholders to the insurers, thus failing to ensure that Catholic individuals and institutions would not have to pay for services that they consider immoral, Cardinal-designate Dolan said.
For one thing, the cardinal-designate said, many dioceses and Catholic institutions are self-insuring. Moreover, Catholics with policies in the compliant insurance companies would be subsidizing others' contraception coverage. He also objected that individual Catholic employers would not enjoy exemption under Obama's proposal.
"My brother-in-law, who's a committed Catholic, runs a butcher shop. Is he going to have to pay for services that he as a convinced Catholic considers to be morally objectionable?" he asked.
Cardinal-designate Dolan said he emailed Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who heads the Catholic Health Association, on Feb. 10 to tell her that he was "disappointed that she had acted unilaterally, not in concert with the bishops."
"She's in a bind," the cardinal-designate said of Sister Carol. "When she's talking to (HHS Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius and the president of the United States, in some ways, these are people who are signing the checks for a good chunk of stuff that goes on in Catholic hospitals. It's tough for her to stand firm. Understandably, she's trying to make sure that anything possible, any compromise possible, that would allow the magnificent work of Catholic health care to continue, she's probably going to be innately more open to than we would."
In a Feb. 10 statement, Sister Carol praised what she called "a resolution ... that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions."
Cardinal-designate Dolan said Obama called him the morning of his announcement to tell him about the proposal.
"What we're probably going to have to do now is be more vigorous than ever in judicial and legislative remedies, because apparently we're not getting much consolation from the executive branch of the government," he said.
The cardinal-designate said the bishops are "very, very enthusiastic" about the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb. The cardinal said the legislation would produce an "ironclad law simply saying that no administrative decrees of the federal government can ever violate the conscience of a religious believer individually or religious institutions."
"It's a shame, you'd think that's so clear in the Constitution that that wouldn't have to be legislatively guaranteed, but we now know that it's not," he added.
In a phone interview with Catholic News Service in Washington, Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, echoed what Cardinal-designate Dolan said about the need for legislative action to enact a religious right to conscience protection into federal law.
"Our religious freedom is too precious to be protected only be regulations," Bishop Lori said. "It needs legislative protection. More legislators, I think, are looking at it. There's more bipartisan support for it. There should be a lot pressure exerted on Congress to pass it and for the president to sign it."
In Rome Cardinal-designate Dolan said that some "very prominent attorneys," some of them non-Catholic and even nonreligious, had already volunteered to represent the bishops.
"We've got people who aren't Catholic, who may not even be religious, who have said, 'We want to help you on this one.' We've got very prominent attorneys who are very interested in religious freedom who say, 'Count on us to take these things as high as you can.' And we're going to."
He said the bishops draw hope for that fight from the Supreme Court's recent unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, a case regarding the ministerial exception.
"You'd think that (the Obama administration) would be able to read the tea leaves, that these things are going to be overthrown," the cardinal-designate said.
Bishop Lori told CNS that only after the original rule regarding contraception and sterilization coverage was revised and ready to be announced Feb. 10 did the White House contact Cardinal-designate Dolan and the USCCB.
The bishop suggested that Obama administration officials would have better understood the concerns religious organizations have about the rule had they tried to talk with the Catholic bishops, evangelicals and Orthodox church leaders who objected to the measure.
"That certainly did not happen," he said.
Such a meeting would have allowed the bishops "to bring it home that our ministries of charity, health care and education flow from what we believe and how we worship and how we are to live."
An administration official told Catholic News Service in an email Feb. 13 that the White House planned to convene a series of meetings "with faith-based organizations, insurers and other interested parties to develop policies that respect religious liberty and ensure access to preventive services for women enrolled in self-insured group health plans sponsored by religious organizations."
- - -
Contributing to this story was Dennis Sadowski in Washington.
END
-
ROME (CNS) -- Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan of New York said Feb. 13 that President Barack Obama's proposed revision to the contraceptive mandate in the health reform law did nothing to change the U.S. bishops' opposition to what they regard as an unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty.
"We bishops are pastors, we're not politicians, and you can't compromise on principle," said Cardinal-designate Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "And the goal posts haven't moved and I don't think there's a 50-yard line compromise here," he added.
"We're in the business of reconciliation, so it's not that we hold fast, that we're stubborn ideologues, no. But we don't see much sign of any compromise," he said.
"What (Obama) offered was next to nothing. There's no change, for instance, in these terribly restrictive mandates and this grossly restrictive definition of what constitutes a religious entity," he said. "The principle wasn't touched at all."
Obama's proposed revision of the Department of Health and Human Services' contraceptive mandate left intact the restrictive definition of a religious entity and would shift the costs of contraceptives from the policyholders to the insurers, thus failing to ensure that Catholic individuals and institutions would not have to pay for services that they consider immoral, Cardinal-designate Dolan said.
For one thing, the cardinal-designate said, many dioceses and Catholic institutions are self-insuring. Moreover, Catholics with policies in the compliant insurance companies would be subsidizing others' contraception coverage. He also objected that individual Catholic employers would not enjoy exemption under Obama's proposal.
"My brother-in-law, who's a committed Catholic, runs a butcher shop. Is he going to have to pay for services that he as a convinced Catholic considers to be morally objectionable?" he asked.
Cardinal-designate Dolan said he emailed Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity who heads the Catholic Health Association, on Feb. 10 to tell her that he was "disappointed that she had acted unilaterally, not in concert with the bishops."
Read the rest at CNS: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200596.htm
Further Reading:
Six more things everyone should know about the HHS mandate (USCCB blog)
Archbishops Kurtz and Chaput join protests over 'unacceptable' attack on religious liberty (N.C. Register)
How the White House's 98% Contraception Figure for Catholics is Wrong (Tom Hoopes/Catholic Vote)
Obama seen working to splinter Catholic community (Catholic Culture)
Cardinal-Designate Dolan says bishops are not 'Obama Haters' (John Allen / I don't normally link to the NCR, but John Allen's articles are an exception because he is the exception there)
Fr. Jenkins: Where is your signature? (Pat Archbold/N.C. Register)
Just a minute Mr. President (Cardinal Roger Mahony)
The Audacity of Power: President Obama vs. the Catholic Church (Charles Kadlec/Forbes)
Intolerance is at the heart of Obamacare (James Taranto/WSJ)
Obama has stranded the Catholic 'left' (Elizabeth Scalia / First Things)
Democrats to Catholics: We don't want you (Rod Dreher)
The pseudo-magisterium needs to be neutered (Te Deum Laudamus)
TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics; Click to Add Topic
Obama is Damien Thorn.
-
Why should the government be able to mandate what Employers offer? That is one of the big deciding factors when I was job searching, were the benefits. The company that offered benefits more to my liking, I took. Those that didnt coincide with my wants/needs, I didnt. (Unless I had to have work, then it was a non issue). All these people bitching dont HAVE to work for the church. They know who theyre working for. There is NO REASON in hell that a government should tell a church org that they have to offer a service that they do not believe in. Its a fundamental right of EVERYONE in this country to run their lives (and business) how they see fit, as long as it doesnt hurt or unfairly fuck someone else.
There is nothing to stop someone from going and getting BC somewhere else. Saying that the Church should be forced to offer BC is basically saying you think the government should be able to tell you how to live your lives.
The problem is youre talking to someone who does believe that.
-
Commerce Is the Culture War
Townhall.com ^ | February 15 2012 | David Harsanyi
It's always curious to watch the champions of "choice" decide what choices to champion and what choices to dismiss for the common good.
If you believe that the Obama administration's decision to force Catholic institutions to pay for and offer (directly or indirectly) products the church finds morally objectionable is an assault on religious freedom and free speech, you probably also realize the importance of consumer choice. After all, when government dictates what people buy and sell, it dictates much more.
First, let's ponder the precedent: Obama argues that government not only is empowered to force every adult to purchase a product in a marketplace (in this case, health insurance) but also can demand that providers sell certain products in this market (in this case, contraception). Washington, then, has the ability to direct both seller and buyer if it deems such actions beneficial for society.
And, needless to say, when Democrats deem something beneficial for society, they have a strong tendency to start treating this something as if it were a "right." As it stands, you have the "right" to a free condom, and should you forget or neglect or utilize this right, you have the right to an abortion that is partially funded by fungible taxpayer dollars. (If, however, a couple keep a child, they have no right to use their tax dollars to shop for a school outside their own neighborhood or, apparently, find a health care plan that comports with their values.)
As many of you know, there are "negative rights," as in my right to be protected from harm if I try to buy, say, birth control. And there are also "positive rights," as in my right to have birth control provided for me. In the eyes of many liberals, condoms, health care, salubrious foods, housing, etc., should, if there is any decency in this nation, be positive rights. Thus, anyone failing to provide these things is really just "denying" people access.
So, the argument goes, by failing to offer birth control, the Catholic Church is actually preventing access to reproductive health care.
A neat trick.
If we need an example of how limiting consumer choice can ignite social, economic and quality issues, we can turn to the similar one-size-fits-all debacle of "rights" called public education. Yes, there are Philistines like me who believe that exposing schools to market forces would spur innovation and better outcomes. Surely, there is little doubt that if we extricated schools from state monopolies and transformed parents into consumers, the many arguments about God, history, politics and Darwinism -- or whateverism is grating against your sensibilities -- would be fought in the comment sections of websites rather than in classrooms.
Don't get me wrong; the left believes that parents should be free to teach their kids whatever they'd like, just not in the schools they happen to pay for.
Health care is similarly destined, no doubt. The intent of Democrats is to create a system with uniform coverage. So what we will be left with is a bunch of highly regulated, interchangeable insurance companies offering virtually identical plans with no incentive for innovation and absolutely no reason to tailor products or plans to appeal to the many diverse groups in this country -- religious or otherwise.
They have one consumer to please and one set of morals to worry about. The state. If you don't like your plan, switch to another one just like it. If you can't afford to leave your employer's plan, then join one of those fabricated exchanges run by government.
If you've got some religious beef, beg for an accommodation.
If you don't like the answer, well, hey, where you gonna go?
It's like a theocracy ... without the God part.
-
LOL @ war on Religious Freedom
Catholic charities got ~ 62% of their funding from US taxpayers (most of whom are presumably not even Catholic)
Why doesn't the Catholic Church just refuse that money as a matter of principle
BTW - last time I checked churches don't pay any taxes
I wish the government would persecute me like that
best quote in this clip - "you've confused a war on your religion with not always getting everything you want"
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues---sean-hannity-s-holy-sausage-fest
-
Why should any employer on any level be forced to provide benefits at levels determined by the Govt.?
I am bald with a shaved head. Lets say I get enough other bald guys together to lobby obama for inclusion of free hair transplants in health insurance. We give thugbama a donation of 50k and he orders Sebellius to mandate all carriers offer free hair transplants to all policy holders. As a result all premiuims would go up say 100 a month.
Would you be ok with that?
-
Why should any employer on any level be forced to provide benefits at levels determined by the Govt.?
I am bald with a shaved head. Lets say I get enough other bald guys together to lobby obama for inclusion of free hair transplants in health insurance. We give thugbama a donation of 50k and he orders Sebellius to mandate all carriers offer free hair transplants to all policy holders. As a result all premiuims would go up say 100 a month.
Would you be ok with that?
contraception is basic health care and the church is being gradious hypocrites since 98% of Catholic women use contraception
I'd be fine if they didn't want to provide it as part of their healthcare coverage (and I'm sure you're aware that most already do and this is a big phony stink up about nothing) if they also refused to take any federal dollars and give up their tax exempt status
I'd make that compromise
-
contraception is basic health care and the church is being gradious hypocrites since 98% of Catholic women use contraception
I'd be fine if they didn't want to provide it as part of their healthcare coverage (and I'm sure you're aware that most already do and this is a big phony stink up about nothing) if they also refused to take any federal dollars and give up their tax exempt status
I'd make that compromise
Basic health care? Huh???? Insurance is supposed to be for uncommon events and those not normally planned for.
should tooth paste be included?
-
Basic health care? Huh???? Insurance is supposed to be for uncommon events and those not normally planned for.
should tooth paste be included?
yep - contraception is basic health care just like insurance covers annual physicals, and other types of things
btw - almost all dental plans have free teeth cleaning and when you go the dentist or hygenist often gives you a toothbrush, floss and toothpaste
let me guess ...... you never go to the dentist so this is something you've never heard of either
-
yep - contraception is basic health care just like insurance covers annual physicals, and other types of things
btw - almost all dental plans have free teeth cleaning and when you go the dentist or hygenist often gives you a toothbrush, floss and toothpaste
let me guess ...... you never go to the dentist so this is something you've never heard of either
My point is that the govt should not force employers, regardless of religion or otherwise, to be mandated to offer mandatory minimum levels of benefit levels. Most small businesses simply are going to find it far cheaper to pay the 2k fine and just dump the employees medical insurance once the premiuims skyrocket to beyond the point they can afford it.
-
My point is that the govt should not force employers, regardless of religion or otherwise, to be mandated to offer mandatory minimum levels of benefit levels. Most small businesses simply are going to find it far cheaper to pay the 2k fine and just dump the employees medical insurance once the premiuims skyrocket to beyond the point they can afford it.
government regulates commerce of all kinds
get over it or move to Somolia where you can enjoy freedom from all government regulations
-
government regulates commerce of all kinds
get over it or move to Somolia where you can enjoy freedom from all government regulations
LOL. I can't wait till we get a far RW president one day who appoints a NAZI HHS director who starts bossing you around how you leftists react.
See there is where you communists are so short sighted. You approve of this shit because its thugbama. But wait - when we get a far RW person in office and they go even further because they have the power under this mess - you pieces of garbe on the left are going to cry bloody murder
-
Real Clear Politics Video
The Latest Politics, News & Election Videos
February 15, 2012 Sebelius: "I Did Not Speak To The Catholic Bishops"
Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she "did not speak to the Catholic bishops" before the administration announced a change in its rule on contraception coverage on Friday. When asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) if anyone in the administration talked with the bishops before the new rule was announced, Sebelius said "the president has spoken to the bishops on several occasions" but said she didn't know if he discussed the change in the rule with them.
-
LOL. I can't wait till we get a far RW president one day who appoints a NAZI HHS director who starts bossing you around how you leftists react.
See there is where you communists are so short sighted. You approve of this shit because its thugbama. But wait - when we get a far RW person in office and they go even further because they have the power under this mess - you pieces of garbe on the left are going to cry bloody murder
yeah, remember when Hitler did health care reform in Germany
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues---sean-hannity-s-holy-sausage-fest
-
Real Clear Politics Video
The Latest Politics, News & Election Videos
February 15, 2012 Sebelius: "I Did Not Speak To The Catholic Bishops"
Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she "did not speak to the Catholic bishops" before the administration announced a change in its rule on contraception coverage on Friday. When asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) if anyone in the administration talked with the bishops before the new rule was announced, Sebelius said "the president has spoken to the bishops on several occasions" but said she didn't know if he discussed the change in the rule with them.
who cares if she spoke to them or not
they are an international ring of pederasts based in a foreign country (in fact they are a city-state) and we shouldn't be giving them a fucking penny and we should be taxing them and telling them what they can and cannot do in OUR country
-
who cares if she spoke to them or not
they are an international ring of pederasts based in a foreign country (in fact they are a city-state) and we shouldn't be giving them a fucking penny and we should be taxing them and telling them what they can and cannot do in OUR country
Because obama specifically promised the Bishop otherwise.
-
Because obama specifically promised the Bishop otherwise.
if true then tough titties for them
I couldn't give less of a shit
-
if true then tough titties for them
I couldn't give less of a shit
Of course not - you dont give a damn about honesty or decency so long as your messiahs are pursuing a communist agenda.
-
Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal (Analysis by 2 Former Justice Dept Off)
WSJ ^ | February 16, 2012 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND EDWARD WHELAN
Last Friday, the White House announced that it would revise the controversial ObamaCare birth-control mandate to address religious-liberty concerns. Its proposed modifications are a farce.
The Department of Health and Human Services would still require employers with religious objections to select an insurance company to provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions to its employees. The employers would pay for the drugs through higher premiums. For those employers that self-insure, like the Archdiocese of Washington, the farce is even more blatant.
The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.
That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.
The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.
The law also provides that any later statutory override of its protections must be explicit. But there is nothing in the ObamaCare legislation that explicitly or even implicitly overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
-
Because obama specifically promised the Bishop otherwise.
you were there or is that from one of your right wing rags yuo always post from ::)
-
more fake outrage :D,run some decent canidates and you won't have to play these games ::)
-
Of course not - you dont give a damn about honesty or decency so long as your messiahs are pursuing a communist agenda.
yes, requiring insurance companies to provide contraception = communism
Many catholic universities and hospital already offer contraception
I guess they must be imposing communism on themselves (sneaky bastards beat Obama to it already)
-
Can Obama Order Grocers to Give Away Bread
Townhall.com ^ | February 15, 2012 | Terry Jeffrey
In October 2009, I published a column titled, "Can Obama and Congress Order You to Buy Broccoli?"
Now I need to ask a follow-up: Can Obama order grocers to give away bread?
I wrote the broccoli column after Sen. Orrin Hatch raised serious questions in the Senate Finance Committee about the constitutionality of President Obama's proposal to force people to buy health insurance.
"If we have the power simply to order Americans to buy certain products, why did we need a cash-for-clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy appliances?" Hatch said. "We could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, dishwashers or refrigerators."
Inspired by Hatch's argument, I wrote in my column: "This is not a question about nutrition. It is not a question about whether broccoli is good for you or about the relative merits of broccoli versus other foods. It is a question about the constitutional limits on the power of the federal government. It is a question about freedom.
"Can President Obama and Congress enact legislation that orders Americans to buy health insurance?" I asked. "They might as well order Americans to buy broccoli. They have no legitimate authority to do either."
I later interviewed Hatch about the issue. "If that is held constitutional -- for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance -- then there is literally nothing that the federal government can't force us to do" Hatch said. "Nothing."
Orrin Hatch spoke prophetically. Yet Obama's escalating attacks on American liberty in the post-Obamacare era are nonetheless shocking -- for they reveal a president full of zeal in trampling God-given rights.
Last August, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a proposed regulation that would force virtually all health care plans to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortion.
Because Obamacare mandates that all Americans must purchase health insurance, this regulation would require Catholics -- whose church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are wrong -- to act against the teachings of their faith.
Obama was unambiguously attacking the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
America's Catholic bishops quickly denounced Obama's regulation as "an unprecedented attack on religious liberty." They called on Catholics to speak out against it and urged the administration to rescind it in its entirety.
On Jan. 20, Sebelius announced that the final regulation would take effect for individuals and business owners this Aug. 1, and for Catholic hospitals, universities and charities next Aug. 1. Thus, the government was giving Catholic individuals and business owners seven months, and Catholic institutions 19, to submit to a federal edict that they act against their faith.
The bishops responded by asking their priests to read letters from the pulpit at Sunday masses. Most of these letters boldly stated: "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law."
On Friday, Obama announced what he called a "solution:" The federal government will still order all health insurance plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients without any fees or co-pay. But insurance plans covering workers at religious institutions that object to these services will be required to provide sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to those workers "free of charge."
Thus, Obama is still ordering Catholic institutions to provide insurance plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients. And he is still ordering Catholic employees, private business owners, and private insurers to buy and/or provide these things, even if means they must act against their faith.
Obama's "solution" escalates his attack on freedom: He is now ordering private companies (in this case insurers) to provide a product for free -- even if they find it morally objectionable.
If Obama had the constitutional authority to tell insurance companies they must provide contraceptives and abortifacients for free, he could also tell grocers they must provide meat and bread for free.
He could tell doctors they must provide abortions for free and drug companies they must manufacture and distribute contraceptives for free.
Of course, Obama won't order these last two things because he wants to retain a national supply of doctors who will do abortions and drug companies that will manufacture contraceptives. His acts of tyranny are strategically targeted.
In a powerful column published last month, Roman Catholic Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles pointed out that the Catholic Church is unique among American religious groups in its teaching against artificial contraception.
"So it is hard to escape the conclusion that the government is singling out the church with this new mandate," he wrote.
"But the issues here go far beyond contraception and far beyond the liberties of the Catholic Church," the archbishop concluded. "They go to the heart of our national identity and our historic understanding of our democratic form of government."
Today, Obama is especially attacking the liberty of Catholics. But, in doing so, he has attacked liberty itself.
-
where do you find this retarded shit to copy and paste :o
-
where do you find this retarded shit to copy and paste :o
Why is it retarded? Using the justification for free birthcontrol - why cant thugghettopofcommietrait ormaobama order gorcers to give away FREE food?
-
it's no wonder you have the canidates you have,you deserve everything you get :D
-
it's no wonder you have the canidates you have,you deserve everything you get :D
You cant formulate a substantive difference correct?
-
you post so much shit i don't think you read most of it,some of the shit makes you look,well, just plain dumb
-
you post so much shit i don't think you read most of it,some of the shit makes you look,well, just plain dumb
Like what specifically? Under the HHS regs you support thugbama and his henchcunt Sebeliius could order any business to give away free stuff because they feel like it using even the flimsiest reasoning.
-
i think obama going to mandate how many post you can put on getbig on any given day ::)
-
ObamaCare endangers human life
by Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. and Rep. Phil Gingrey
02/14/201286
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49504
As physicians and Members of Congress we were deeply disappointed in President Obama’s new so-called “contraception mandate,” including his decision to coerce employers into providing coverage for medications that terminate human life.
Legal experts say this ruling is a direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. That law “prohibited government action that has the effect of substantially burdening religious practice.” To comply with the Administration’s latest ruling, religious-affiliated employers face three options: act against their religious beliefs and help terminate human life, drop all employees from health coverage, or exclude Americans of other faiths from employment or charitable services. The Obama administration cannot demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify this attack on freedom of speech and religion, so it refuses to do so.
The new mandate will require employers to offer emergency contraception drugs with no copayment, including ulipristal acetate. Premium costs will increase, as will the total cost of ObamaCare as religious employers are forced to drop coverage for their employees, but the end result is even more troubling. Like RU486, ulipristal acetate or Ella, is a selective progesterone receptor modulator. By blocking progesterone receptors, it can destroy a pregnancy and prevent implantation of a human embryo. In 2010, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists cited several studies documenting these effects in written comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
By pandering to groups who profit from abortion-on-demand, President Obama has even managed to alienate Americans who once supported his 2010 law. One Senate Democrat called the recent mandate “un-American.” Another former House Democrat mentioned the ruling as a reason she regretted voting for Obamacare. The President should reverse the ruling and respect religious freedoms enshrined in our First Amendment.
Beyond this egregious mandate, Obamacare endangers human life in several ways, including the President’s new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius insisted this panel may not “ration” seniors’ medical care, before admitting this word remains undefined in the law. She has not announced any plan to define the term in regulations. By slashing payments below costs, IPAB will delay or block seniors’ access to life-saving treatments.
It’s time to repeal the 2010 health law, once and for all, and replace it with solutions that lower costs while protecting the lives of all Americans, and respecting First Amendment freedoms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Charles Boustany is a retired heart surgeon. He was elected to Congress in 2004 and serves as Oversight Subcommittee chairman on the House Ways and Means Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) is co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and a pro-life OB/GYN with over 25 years of experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
i think obama going to mandate how many post you can put on getbig on any given day ::)
And of course you would support that since you support tyranny and stalinism.
-
ObamaCare endangers human life
by Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. and Rep. Phil Gingrey
02/14/201286
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49504
As physicians and Members of Congress we were deeply disappointed in President Obama’s new so-called “contraception mandate,” including his decision to coerce employers into providing coverage for medications that terminate human life.
Legal experts say this ruling is a direct violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. That law “prohibited government action that has the effect of substantially burdening religious practice.” To comply with the Administration’s latest ruling, religious-affiliated employers face three options: act against their religious beliefs and help terminate human life, drop all employees from health coverage, or exclude Americans of other faiths from employment or charitable services. The Obama administration cannot demonstrate a compelling government interest to justify this attack on freedom of speech and religion, so it refuses to do so.
The new mandate will require employers to offer emergency contraception drugs with no copayment, including ulipristal acetate. Premium costs will increase, as will the total cost of ObamaCare as religious employers are forced to drop coverage for their employees, but the end result is even more troubling. Like RU486, ulipristal acetate or Ella, is a selective progesterone receptor modulator. By blocking progesterone receptors, it can destroy a pregnancy and prevent implantation of a human embryo. In 2010, the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists cited several studies documenting these effects in written comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
By pandering to groups who profit from abortion-on-demand, President Obama has even managed to alienate Americans who once supported his 2010 law. One Senate Democrat called the recent mandate “un-American.” Another former House Democrat mentioned the ruling as a reason she regretted voting for Obamacare. The President should reverse the ruling and respect religious freedoms enshrined in our First Amendment.
Beyond this egregious mandate, Obamacare endangers human life in several ways, including the President’s new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius insisted this panel may not “ration” seniors’ medical care, before admitting this word remains undefined in the law. She has not announced any plan to define the term in regulations. By slashing payments below costs, IPAB will delay or block seniors’ access to life-saving treatments.
It’s time to repeal the 2010 health law, once and for all, and replace it with solutions that lower costs while protecting the lives of all Americans, and respecting First Amendment freedoms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Charles Boustany is a retired heart surgeon. He was elected to Congress in 2004 and serves as Oversight Subcommittee chairman on the House Ways and Means Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. (GA-11) is co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and a pro-life OB/GYN with over 25 years of experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow 2 repub congressmen oppose :D :D :D :D :D :D :D who would have thought :D
-
USCCB President: 'Harder and Harder' to Accept Obama's Word
Catholic Culture ^ | 2/14/12
The president of the US bishops’ conference has said that it is “getting harder and harder” to believe that President Obama has a genuine commitment to religious liberty.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan on New York, who is in Rome this week to receive a cardinal’s red hat..........
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicculture.org ...
________________________ __
LOL!!!! And he thinks its only this issue? Who believes thugbama on anything?
-
:D :D :D let's keep the fake outrage going,maybe nobody will notice the loser canidate we are running :D :D :D :D
-
:D :D :D let's keep the fake outrage going,maybe nobody will notice the loser canidate we are running :D :D :D :D
Look who the fucking demos are running!
Obama is the biggest train wreck ever!
-
Look who the fucking demos are running!
Obama is the biggest train wreck ever!
and he's leading both your losers by 6 points,this sould have been a slam dunk for the repubs,they can't even do that right :D
-
and he's leading both your losers by 6 points,this sould have been a slam dunk for the repubs,they can't even do that right :D
Carter lef reagan too at this point by double digits as did dukakis. .
-
so which one of these canidates is reagan :D :D :D :D
-
Horrible… Team Obama Misrepresents Catholic Charities’ Position on White House Website
Gateway Pundit ^ | 2/15/12 | Jim Hoft
Posted on February 15, 2012 11:15:12 PM EST by Nachum
On Sunday the Obama Administration posted a list of organizations who they claimed supported their anti-religious HHS mandate. The list posted on the White House website included a quote from Catholic Charities.
But it wasn’t true.
Catholic Charities did not endorse the Obama administration’s latest HHS policy requiring free contraceptive coverage for all employees. FOX News reported:
A leading Catholic charity group wants the public to know it has not endorsed the Obama administration’s latest policy requiring free contraceptive coverage for employees, despite “mischaracterizations in the media.”
Catholic Charities USA has occasionally been cited as a supporter of the new policy, after the administration announced last week it would no longer require religious organizations to directly offer contraceptive coverage to workers. That’s almost certainly because the White House listed the group on an official blog that cited “praise from a wide range of individuals and organizations” for the policy change.
Along with statements from Planned Parenthood and other supporters was a brief statement from Catholic Charities. The group said at the time that it “welcomes the administration’s attempt to meet the concerns of the religious community” and looks forward to reviewing the final language…
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
-
Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee
Think the contraception decision was bad? Wait until bureaucrats start telling your insurer which cancer screenings to cover.
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB
WWW.WSJ.COM
Offended by President Obama's decision to force health insurers to pay for contraception and surgical sterilization? It gets worse: In the future, thanks to ObamaCare, the government will issue such health edicts on a routine basis—and largely insulated from public view. This goes beyond contraception to cancer screenings, the use of common drugs like aspirin, and much more.
Under ObamaCare, a single committee—the United States Preventative Services Task Force—is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.
The task force already rates services with letter grades of "A" through "D" (or "I," if it has "insufficient evidence" to make a rating). But under ObamaCare, services rated "A" or "B"—such as colon cancer screening for adults aged 50-75—must be covered by health plans in full, without any co-pays. Many services that get "Cs" and "Ds"—such as screening for ovarian or testicular cancer—could get nixed from coverage entirely.
That's because mandating coverage for all the "A" and "B" services will be very costly. In 2000, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the marginal cost of similar state insurance mandates was 5%-10% of total claims. Other estimates put the cost of mandates as high as 20% of premiums.
Health plans will inevitably choose to drop coverage for many services that don't get a passing grade from the task force and therefore aren't mandated. Insurance companies will need to conserve their premium money, which the government regulates, in order to spend it subsidizing those services that the task force requires them to cover in full.
Enlarge Image
CloseDavid Klein
.Americans first became familiar with the task force in November 2009, when it made the controversial decision to recommend that women ages 40-49 shouldn't get routine mammograms. More recently, it rebuffed routine prostate-cancer screening and the use of tests that detect the viruses that can cause cervical cancer.
The task force relishes setting a very high bar. Like the Food and Drug Administration in approving new drugs, it usually requires a randomized, prospective trial to "prove" that a diagnostic test or other intervention improves clinical outcomes and therefore deserves a high grade of "A" or "B."
This means its advice is often out of sync with conventional medical practice. For example, it recommended against wider screening for HIV long after such screening was accepted practice. As a result, many of its verdicts are widely ignored by practicing doctors.
The task force is a part-time board of volunteer advisers that works slowly and is often late to incorporate new science into its recommendations. Only in 2009 did it finally recommend aspirin for the prevention of stroke and heart attack among those at risk—decades after this practice was demonstrated to save lives and had become part of standard medical practice.
The task force is also the only federal health agency to have the explicit legal authority to consider cost as one criterion in recommending whether patients should use a medical test or treatment.
Over time, the task force will surely recommend against many services that patients now take for granted, while mandating full insurance coverage for things that they'd be just as happy paying for. Among the interventions that it plans to consider in 2012 are screening for hepatitis C in adults, for osteoporosis in men and for depression in children; counseling for obesity in adults and for alcohol use in adolescents; and daily aspirin for heart-attack and stroke prevention in people over 80.
The task force's problems are compounded by the fact that it is deliberately exempted from the rules that govern other government advisory boards and regulatory agencies. Thus it has no obligation to hold its meetings in public, announce decisions in draft form or even consider public comments. Consumers have no way to directly appeal its decisions. And health providers or product developers affected by its decisions can't sue it for recourse.
To begin addressing these problems, Congress should make the task force subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would at least require it to hold its deliberations in public. Congress could also make it a full-fledged part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which already convenes its meetings. That would make the task force subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and all the rules that bind other regulatory bodies, including the legal requirement to consider public comments and provide avenues for appeal.
Better still, Congress could let private health plans—and their members—decide on their own how preventive tests and treatments should be covered. If not, Americans will soon be surprised by all the important tests and treatments that become more costly, and all the less relevant stuff that's suddenly free.
It's all a reminder that President Obama's decision on contraception isn't a one-off political intervention but the initial exploit of an elaborate new system.
Dr. Gottlieb, a physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has served as deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and senior policy adviser to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He consults with and invests in health-care companies.
-
hahahahahha i'm on getbig grasping at straws ;D ;D
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-overreach--obamacare-vs-the-constitution/2012/02/16/gIQAmupcIR_story.html
Great op Ed.
-
CNN Poll: Americans Oppose Obama’s Contraception Mandate By 50% To 44% Margin…
Weasel Zippers ^ | 2/16/2012 | Weasel Zippers
Hasn’t the MSM been telling us Obama’s mandate was hugely popular?
Washington (CNN) – Half of all Americans say they oppose the Obama administration’s new policy concerning employer-provided health insurance plans and their coverage of contraceptive services for female employees including those at religiously affiliated institutions, according to a new national survey.
The push by the White House has been sharply criticized by Catholic Church officials, and many political pundits have said that the controversy could hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances with Catholic voters. But a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday also indicates that the vast majority of Catholic Americans say they don’t always follow church teachings on such issues as abortion and birth control, and few Americans Catholics believe artificial means of birth control are wrong.
According to the survey, 50% of the public disapproves of the Obama administration policy, with 44% saying they approve of the plan.
Read more
-
Surprise! Planned Parenthood CEO Top Advisor on Contraception Mandate
Townhall.com ^ | February 19, 2012 | Katie Pavlich
Posted on February 19, 2012 2:57:33 PM EST by Kaslin
Guess who was a key player in pushing through the birth control mandate in ObamaCare? Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards. According to reports, not only did Obama listen to Richards, but took her word over the suggestions his top advisers, including Vice President Joe Biden, then Chief of Staff Bill Daley and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. According th ABC's Jake Tapper, there was an internal debate about the contraception mandate at the White House.
The debate within the White House on this issue was, sources say, heated, and President Obama was legitimately torn. Panetta wasn’t alone in his concerns. For months, Vice President Joe Biden and then-White House chief of staff Bill Daley argued internally against the rule, sources tell ABC News. Biden and Daley didn’t think the rule was right on either the policy or the politics, sources said. Joshua Dubois, head of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, also expressed concern.
The policy was wrong, the two Catholic men, Biden and Daley, argued, saying that the Obama administration couldn’t force religious charities to pay for something they think is a sin.
But Biden and Daley faced a strong group making the case for the rule within the administration – including Catholics such as senior adviser David Plouffe and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, senior White House advisers Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, and then-domestic policy council director Melody Barnes. Others outside the White House also pushed hard for the rule, including former White House communications director Anita Dunn, Senators Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards. (Some of the details of this internal division were first reported yesterday by Bloomberg’s Mike Dorning and Margaret Talev.)
LifeNews makes this point:
Note that liberal feminists and the abortion lobby carried more sway with Obama than his higher ranking male advisers. Recall Barnes is a former Planned Parenthood Action Fund and EMILY’s List board member and also a former lobbyist for the Center for Reproductive Rights. We all know how tied into the abortion industry Sebelius is. Obama has surrounded himself with radical pro-abortion feminists.
Comforting to know the President of the United States is taking his advice from people who believe in Planned Parenthood, an organization founded to "Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit."
-
EMAIL FRIEND | PRINT ARTICLE | 6 COMMENTS | SHARE
February 19, 2012
Our Father, Who Art in Washington
By Ebben Raves
Images can be powerful. We have all seen films of the Nuremburg rallies. The torchlight processions, the banners, the chanting crowds: all purposely staged to elevate one man to a status as something more than human, a benevolent leader who promised fairness and payback against the evil enemies of the people. All things were possible through him. The trains would run on time, the capitalists and bankers would pay for taking advantage of the people. Social justice would finally be achieved if only the people would pledge themselves to him.
Juxtapose those images with a 2008 party rally in a Denver stadium. The Greek columns, the giant television screens, the laser light show: all dedicated to elevate a man who promised the wars would end, the earth would heal, and the oceans would halt their rise. Peace and justice at last. He was the one we were waiting for. Goebbels would have been proud.
Il Duce's portrait was ubiquitous in 1930's Italy. The stolid face with the up thrust chin, looking down over the nose became symbolic of Mussolini's fascism. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." "State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." Does any of this look or sound familiar?
Some images are meant to be powerful. From the works of master painters, to stained glass, to the inexpensive, gilded frame picture in many homes, Christ is frequently depicted with a halo. From background lighting, to a campaign symbol, to the presidential seal, a certain public servant is also frequently depicted with the appearance of a halo. Can we guess what image the latter's halo is meant to convey?
Words can be powerful, too, either spoken or written on paper. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Some words are even carved in stone. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." What were the Jesuits at Georgetown thinking?
Fascists, communists and other dictators discredited, if not outlawed, religion. The state was the ultimate authority, moral or otherwise. The state in many cases was personified by an individual from whom all things flowed. What did Christians do to keep them from power? The same as today, not enough. From the "feel good, rock and roll, light show" mega churches to the original Bride of Christ, only token, unorganized resistance has come forth. In fact, past devout Christians were better organized and more numerous than today and were still unsuccessful.
What happened to the Christians that faced lions for their faith? Real lions, not the talking cartoon characters. Were they co-opted by promises of government social welfare? Or were they cowed by the threat of the loss of their 501(c)3 status? Judging from the watered down socialism coming from today's pulpit, either is possible. Protest church funded abortion via the Affordable Health Care Act? Contact your congressman. Lobby for the government to provide forced charity? Sure. Deny Communion, let alone excommunicate those who promulgate mortal sin? Nah, too controversial. Pathetic. Don't think this administration doesn't know it, either. They think this a fight they can win.
Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless. The mistake that Christians, or any other religion for that matter, make when they accept and encourage government social justice is that all modern government is eventually at the point of a gun. Look at other formerly Christian countries. Preach what is in the Bible, go to jail for hate speech. Resist hard enough, meet the point of a gun. Remember, we're no longer a Christian country. The state said so. Oh, something else to think about. Refuse to pay taxes of which part go to the government charity programs that your church lobbied for and approved of? Meet the same end. That blood is on somebody's hands.
"But the Constitution protects our freedom of religion!" Really? We haven't seen the Constitution jump up out of its glass case and do anything. It's just a piece of paper. Its only power comes from citizens acting on its behalf. Don't think the administration doesn't know this, either.
Many have argued that the left is fighting for freedom from religion. No, there will always be religion. Fundamental change was promised; change from God given rights to state granted rights are being delivered. When the state eliminates God, the state becomes god. And the state is a jealous god, especially when it takes guidance from a book dedicated to Lucifer.
Email Friend | Print Article | 6 Comments | Share
-
Give the Obama administration their due, they sure are great deceivers. In an effort to escape the firestorm engulfing them because of the ObamaCare mandate that forces churches to violate their theology, the president announced a “compromise” on February 10. The details of this compromise demonstrate that President Obama simply cannot be believed.
Naturally, the Washington Post, either as compliant dupes or dishonest confederates, ran with the front page headline: “ Obama shifts course on birth control rule to calm Catholic leaders’ outrage .” The headline contained a falsehood, the “shift,” as well as the administration’s messaging to Catholics, calm.
N.C. Aizenman, Peter Wallsten, and Karen Tumulty, authors of the Post story, claimed the White House “alter[ed] a new birth control rule.” It characterized the announcement as a “new policy.” Most deceptive of all, the Post said the announcement “amends a rule announced in August.”
Lies, all.
First, nothing was changed from the original rule. The Department of Health and Human Services, Friday night, hours after Obama’s big “compromise,” issued the final regulation in exact form as the regulation first issued in August 2011 “without changes.” Church-affiliated entities, such as Catholic hospitals, were still not exempted in the issued final regulation.
Next, the final rule issued the evening of the “compromise” provided absolutely no relief from the sterilization mandate. Remember, this fight is not just about contraception, though the White House seeks to steer the debate in that direction. ObamaCare also mandates that Catholic institutions provide sterilization services and abortifacient drugs, something squarely at odds with Catholic theology. The Washington Post and White House usually omit the pair when discussing the issue.
Worst of all, the “compromise” was not a formal rule or promulgated regulation issued to correct the original rules. No law or rule changed. Instead, it was an empty promise, like the thirty pieces of silver given to former Representative Bart Stupak to obtain his vote for ObamaCare. HHS merely mentioned an “intent to develop” future regulations that would apply the rule differently. These safe harbors wouldn’t even be available until 2013. The compromise was theoretical, delayed, and meaningless. Phony is another word that fits.
Even under the phony compromise, if an employee of a religious institution wants contraception or sterilization coverage, the religious employer is still forced to pay for it as part of the employer’s insurance plan. Church-affiliated money will still be forced to flow in directions contrary to church teaching.
Simply, Obama’s compromise is what many suspected — a phony, politically expedient diversion that relies on the stupidity of the American people or the active collaboration of the media. As I have written before, the administration simply doesn’t understand what it is up against. They don’t seem to understand the resolve of their opponents on this issue.
The original ObamaCare mandate was a frontal assault on constitutionally protected religious liberty. The White House “compromise” has piled deception onto the already rancid history of ObamaCare.
With this administration, nothing is surprising anymore.
-
Obama's War on Religious Liberty
Townhall.com ^ | February 20, 2012 | Phyllis Schlafly
Welcome to the real ObamaCare, whereby a handful of leftists in Washington, D.C., impose the views of their big-money donors on more than 300 million Americans. If the Obama mandate for contraception remains intact, then liberals will next demand that Americans pay for other objectionable items that are not really medical care.
We can expect future mandates, under the guise of "health care," to include sex-change operations, late-term abortions, embryonic stem-cell use and a variety of other procedures that many Americans do not support and certainly do not want to be compelled to foot the bill for. Obama's directive for abortifacient drugs opens a slippery slope that would erode the moral authority of religious institutions in America.
Obama and the liberals have overplayed their hand. By baring their teeth, these lackeys for the Left have awakened Democratic voters to the real contempt that liberals hold for religious values.
All 181 U.S. Catholic bishops oppose Obama's mandate, and Rasmussen polling estimates that 65 percent of Catholic Americans also oppose it. There are about 75 million American Catholics, most of whom have traditionally been Democratic voters but wouldn't hesitate to cross party lines to defend their church leaders.
It will be fascinating to see how many Democratic politicians up for re-election this November side with Obama and against religious organizations. Liberals are just fine with throwing some Democratic incumbents overboard to advance far-left goals, just as the enactment of ObamaCare in 2010 cost many Democrats their congressional seats.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's congressional testimony made clear that the Obama administration is dug in permanently to enforce the regulation that religiously affiliated institutions must offer their employees health insurance that includes abortion drugs, sterilization and contraceptives. Of course, insurance companies price their products to make a profit, so clearly the cost will be concealed and distributed so many will pay for services that violate their religious beliefs.
Dick Morris exposed how George Stephanopoulos outed the Obama strategy behind this outrageous action. Knowing that abortion is no longer a winning issue for Democrats, Obama wanted to shift the debate to contraception.
However, his ploy has failed. He really shifted the debate to religious liberty and to how the Obama administration is planning to force Americans to pay for procedures that their religion teaches them is morally wrong.
The religious liberty issue is definitely not confined to Catholic hospitals, schools, colleges and charities. It opens up the whole attack on religion and on Christianity that is now going on in the Obama administration, the courts and even the military.
The U.S. Army Chief of Chaplains sent an email to senior chaplains telling them that Archbishop Timothy Broglio's letter criticizing the Obama insurance rule was not to be read from the pulpit. There is no evidence that Obama personally issued this order, but the Army Chief of Chaplains must have thought he was taking a politically correct action.
Has anti-religious bigotry become so pervasive that chaplains believe they must censor their sermons to conform to Obama's prejudices?
Just recently, the Obama administration forced the Air Force's Capabilities Office to strike the Latin word for "God" from its logo. Since schools seldom teach Latin any more, I wonder how many realized what this meant.
At the Veterans Affairs Department, Obama's agents banned Military Honor Details from reciting the significance of each fold of the American Flag during the burial services of our heroic men and women who gave their lives for our country. Obama says the ceremony promoted religion and therefore, the recitations had to stop.
Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University, a Catholic college. But he ordered his staff to cover up a crucifix with a giant black tarp because he didn't want anybody to see a religious symbol while he was talking.
Obama has joined in the war against religion being waged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the atheists in the courts. We've all heard about the lawsuits attempting to delete "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, remove Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from every public place.
Less well known, but important in the big picture, are the judges' decisions to ban the Westmoreland Middle School football coach in Tennessee from bowing his head during student-led prayer before a game and the decision to ban grace before supper at Virginia Military Institute.
The plan is even more far-reaching. It confirms that the ObamaCare law can impose any regulation the bureaucrats choose, such as death panels.
The firestorm over this most recent regulation is one more proof that social issues and fiscal issues are inescapably intertwined. Social-issue policy decisions determine fiscal ones.
The Heritage Foundation has just released its 2012 Index of Dependence on Government. It shows the shocking fact that 1 in 5 Americans is dependent on government, meaning reliance on government handouts for housing, health care, food stamps, college tuition and retirement assistance.
-
;)
-
the fake outrage continues :D here's a great idea, find a decent canidate ;D
-
Look at this bullshit still continuing.
It has been over a week of getting his head bashed in on this thread and it stills runs on and on.
-
Look at this bullshit still continuing.
It has been over a week of getting his head bashed in on this thread and it stills runs on and on.
:D :D man, you've had some good 1 liners today ;D
-
:D :D man, you've had some good 1 liners today ;D
Yawn - its still in the news and Thugbama is going to lose votes over this.
-
Yawn - its still in the news and Thugbama is going to lose votes over this.
on the right wing sites you post and paste from,the fake outrage continues :D
-
on the right wing sites you post and paste from,the fake outrage continues :D
Please go refute Schiff's youtube video on this blackass.
-
the only place i still read about this so calld issue is on your post. ;D mr. fake outrage himself :D
-
the only place i still read about this so calld issue is on your post. ;D mr. fake outrage himself :D
When you spend the rest of your time on the Sesame Street and Romper Room websites, no wonder you are so painfully uninformed.
-
When you spend the rest of your time on the Sesame Street and Romper Room websites, no wonder you are so painfully uninformed.
Lol. That is what happens when a person constantly watches CNN, MSNBC, and FOX.
-
Lol. That is what happens when a person constantly watches CNN, MSNBC, and FOX.
333386 has his ball licker following him around again,now that's nice :D
-
Obama Responds to Belmont Abbey Lawsuit. Epic Fail.
Cardinal Newman Society ^ | 2/17/12 | Matthew Archbold
The Obama administration today filed its first legal response to Belmont Abbey College’s lawsuit challenging the controversial contraception mandate, according to The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Belmont Abbey in this case.
The Obama administration had their first opportunity to explain to the court and the country why the mandate is not illegal and unconstitutional, and it seems like an epic fail.
“You might have expected them to argue that we don’t have a constitutional claim,” Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund told The Cardinal Newman Society. “But instead they said ‘hey, didn’t you hear we may fix it someday?’”
Rienzi called it “really cynical” to have a law on the books but then argue that the court shouldn’t look at the law, because the administration said they’d fix it some day in the future.
He said he suspected that the administration knew they were on shaky legal ground when the lawyers kept asking for extensions while the politicians kept holding press conferences. He said that the administration’s promise to change the law in the future doesn’t stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund. “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.”
The administration’s legal filing is based on President Obama saying at a press conference last week that the rules may be changed in the future.
But the Becket Fund points out that what’s said at a press conference is not legally binding and does nothing to change the law on the books.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.cardinalnewmansocie ty.org ...
-
Yawn - its still in the news and Thugbama is going to lose votes over this.
Yawn.
He is still winning and will still have his cock in your mouth for another 4 years.
-
Gallup: 72% of All Americans and 56% of Democrats Say Obamacare Mandate Unconstitutional
CNSNews ^
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2012
Gallup: 72% of All Americans and 56% of Democrats Say Obamacare Mandate Unconstitutional By Terence P. Jeffrey February 27, 2012 Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey's posts
Kathleen Sebelius Barack Obama
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President Barack Obama at the White House on Feb. 10, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(CNSNews.com)- Seventy-two percent of American adults and 56 percent of self-professed Democrats say that the provision in the health-care law signed by President Barack Obama that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional, says the Gallup Poll.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the mandate.
Among Republicans, according to the poll, 94 percent say the mandate is unconstitutional and 6 percent say it constitutional. Among Independents, 70 percent say it is unconstitutional and 21 percent say it is constitutional. In contrast to the 56 percent of Democrats who say the mandate is unconstitutional, only 37 percent say it is constitutional.
Gallup also asked survey respondents whether they strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose repealing the health-care law if a Republican president is elected this fall. A plurality of 47 percent favored repealing the law, including 26 percent who said they strongly favored repeal and 21 percent who said they favor it. Forty-four percent said they oppose repealing the law, including 20 percent who said they strongly favor repeal and 24 percent you said they favor it.
Among Republicans, 87 percent said they favor repealing the health-care law, including 56 percent who said they strongly favor repeal and 31 percent who said they favor it. Among Democrats, 77 percent said they oppose repeal, including 39 percent who said the strongly oppose repeal and 38 percent who said the oppose it.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
-
Cardinal George: no Catholic hospitals in 2 years unless HHS mandate is rescinded
CatholicCulture.org ^ | 02/27/2012
Posted on Monday, February 27, 2012
Warning that the Church is being “despoiled of her institutions” as “freedom of conscience and of religion become a memory from a happier past,” Cardinal Francis George of Chicago observes that “the Catholic Church in the United States is being told she must ‘give up’ her health care institutions, her universities and many of her social service organizations.”
“So far in American history, our government has respected the freedom of individual conscience and of institutional integrity for all the many religious groups that shape our society,” he continues. “The government has not compelled them to perform or pay for what their faith tells them is immoral. That’s what we’ve meant by freedom of religion. That’s what we had believed was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Maybe we were foolish to believe so.”
Cardinal George adds:
What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the Church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the Church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down …
Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship-no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long cold war to defeat that vision of society.
The strangest accusation in this manipulated public discussion has the bishops not respecting the separation between church and state. The bishops would love to have the separation between church and state we thought we enjoyed just a few months ago, when we were free to run Catholic institutions in conformity with the demands of the Catholic faith, when the government couldn’t tell us which of our ministries are Catholic and which not, when the law protected rather than crushed conscience. The state is making itself into a church.
“If you haven’t already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir,” he continued. “On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.”
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Chicago's Cardinal Warns Of An ObamaCare Gulag
Investor's Business ^ | 2/28/12 | Staff
Posted on February 28, 2012 10:28:15 PM EST by Nachum
First Amendment: The ex-head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops compares the administration take on freedom of worship to the Soviet Union's and says its contraceptive mandate will force church hospitals to close. On the first Sunday of Lent, Chicago's Francis Cardinal George issued his version of the letter issued by the USCCB he recently led. It shredded assurances by the administration that things could be worked out so that religious freedom would not be impaired and painted a bleak future that just might be the administration's intent. Going a bit further than his peers
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
Sebelius Excludes Bishops From Obamacare Mandate Compromise Talks
Catholic Vote.org ^ | 2/28/12 | Thomas Peters
I’m late to relay what Politico reported this morning:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the Obama administration plans to issue a rule “in the near future” on its compromise plan on contraception coverage and is meeting with insurers, clergy and health leaders to get feedback on how to make it work.
“We’ve begun outreach. I have talked to Catholic health leaders, I’m reaching out to priests. We’re also talking to union leaders, we’re talking to our partners at labor who run the self-insured plans to figure out a strategy,” Sebelius told reporters at a conference in D.C. on Tuesday.
One obvious conclusion to take from this is that our combined pressure on the administration has forced Sebelius and Obama to move faster than they had originally hoped. After all, they would prefer to delay any actual compromise until after the election. And then, who knows what they will do. They certainly won’t be worried as much about losing the Catholic vote.
Second, and far more revealing, is who Sebelius is leaving out of these talks: bishops.
She claims to be talking to “Catholic health leaders” (i.e., Carol Keehan of CHA, as usual), “priests” (hmm, I bet I know which ones) and … not bishops, not the USCCB, not heads of Catholic universities or major institutions but …
“union leaders.” and:
“our partners at labor who run the self-insured plans.”
She means the union leaders who have had their self-insured plans exempted form Obamacare’s mandates through special favors and waivers, at the same time as a huge number of Catholic dioceses and employers who also self-insure are required to follow the mandate.
How incredible. Since when did union leaders become the “real” leaders of the Catholic Church?!
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicvote.org ...
-
Holder: 1st Amendment Allows Gov't to Force Catholics to Buy Sterilization-Contraception-Abortion Insurance
By Fred Lucas
February 28, 2012
Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2011, before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the arms trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
(CNSNews.com) - The Justice Department will defend against any legal challenge to the new Obama administration mandate to force employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, even if it goes against their conscience, Attorney General Eric Holder told a House subcommittee Tuesday.
The Department of Health and Human Services rule, part of Obamacare, violates the freedom of conscience for Catholics and other religious groups that expressed their objections to the mandate, opponents say. Already there is litigation asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to free exercise of religion.
“I think I would respectfully disagree in the sense that I don’t think the rule that HHS promulgated was one that ran counter to the religious prohibitions that are contained in the First Amendment,” Holder said.
“That’s especially true looking at the compromise the president and Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius put in place,” Holder told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.
President Barack Obama announced a change to the original rule that would have technically allowed religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals or schools to get an exemption from paying for these drugs, but instead require insurance to provide it for “free.” That so-called compromise would still require religious institutions to pay for insurance that provides the “free” services.
Holder said he would be confident of the federal government’s case in court.
“To the extent that that action is challenged in court, I would expect that the Justice Department would defend what is in place, which would be that compromise,” Holder told the panel.
Embed »
The Becket Fund is representing Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic college in North Carolina, and Colorado Christian University, an evangelical college in Denver, in the cases against the Obama administration. The suits were filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., and Denver respectively.
“It’s really an open and shut case,” Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNSNews.com earlier this month. “All religious faiths should be concerned, even religious faiths that don’t have doctrines regarding contraception. This is not about contraception. This is about the government coercing you to pay for something you don’t believe in.”
In additions to the constitutional questions, Smith said the suit will also reference the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. The law’s intent is to prevent other laws that substantially burden a person’s constitutional right to free expression of religion.
-
Obama Admin lectures Card. Dolan and USCCB. Dolan responds. (Fr Z Fisking of Article)
What Does The Prayer Really Say? ^ | 3/6/2012 | Fr John Zuhlsdorf
Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 6:55:37 AM by markomalley
“We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it.”
Thus, Card. Dolan about the latest insult tossed our way by the Obama Administration.
From LifeSite:
Cardinal: Obama Admin Lectured Bishops on Catholic Teaching
by Steven Ertelt
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops, has released a public letter today detailing a stunning conversation he and other bishops had with top White House officials about the controversial Obama mandate.
In the letter, Cardinal Dolan relates a shocking meeting in which top Obama Administration asked to meet with the bishops to “work out the wrinkles” of the mandate. After accepting the invitation and arriving at the White House, the bishops asked whether any ability to broaden the very narrow religious exemptions in the mandate were off the table.
“The invited us to ‘work out the wrinkles.’ We have accepted that invitation,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, this seems to be stalled: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is scurrilous and insulting, not to mention flat out wrong.”)
Dolan writes: “At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” [Get this...] Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America.” [The editorial in the Jesuit-run America which I looked at HERE. In other words, The Magisterium of Nuns.]
He said, “The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers [Isn't this what I have been talking about? Is it time for the American Patriotic Catholic Association? "But Father! But Father!", some of you are saying. "This isn't China; this is America!]
“We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans,” the archbishop of New York wrote in a public letter to the Catholic bishops last Friday. “We did not ask for this fight, but we will not run from it.”
The Catholic bishops’ president made it appear the mandate is not going to be changed in any way to protect religious freedom.
Dolan said, “The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry ‘without change.’ He added that “The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, ‘Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets.’ That doesn’t bode well for their getting a truly acceptable “accommodation.”
Cardinal Dolan also said “We will continue to accept invitations to meet with and to voice our concerns to anyone of any party, for this is hardly partisan, who is willing to correct the infringements on religious freedom that we are now under. But as we do so, we cannot rely on off the record promises of fixes without deadlines and without assurances of proposals that will concretely address the concerns in a manner that does not conflict with our principles and teaching.”
He added that “Congress might provide more hope, since thoughtful elected officials [catholic HHS Sec. Sebelius, who cannot receive Holy Communion, is not an elected official. ] have proposed legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. Meanwhile, in our recent debate in the senate, our opponents sought to obscure what is really a religious freedom issue by maintaining that abortion inducing drugs and the like are a ‘woman’s health issue.’ We will not let this deception stand. Our commitment to seeking legislative remedies remains strong. And it is about remedies to the assault on religious freedom. Period.”
“Perhaps the courts offer the most light,” he said about the many lawsuits that have been filed against the mandate. [And remember the 9-0 SCOTUS Hosanna-Tabor decision.]
Dolan warned the bishops that “given this climate, we have to prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, [In case the editors wondered if their betrayal of the bishops would go unnoticed.] want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (in an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to ‘give up for Lent’ our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some, like Bishop Robert Lynch wisely noted, wonder whether we might have to engage in civil disobedience and risk steep fines; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.” [It sounds as if closing down is on the table.]
Cardinal Dolan added that “we know so very well that religious freedom is our heritage, our legacy and our firm belief, both as loyal Catholics and Americans. There have been many threats to religious freedom over the decades and years, but these often came from without. This one sadly comes from within. As our ancestors did with previous threats, we will tirelessly defend the timeless and enduring truth of religious freedom.”