Author Topic: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)  (Read 34943 times)

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #125 on: February 09, 2012, 12:26:54 PM »
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?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #126 on: February 09, 2012, 12:29:54 PM »
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 ...




Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #127 on: February 09, 2012, 12:41:41 PM »
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.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #128 on: February 09, 2012, 01:09:13 PM »
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.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #129 on: February 09, 2012, 01:12:18 PM »
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!   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #130 on: February 09, 2012, 01:15:22 PM »
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


Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #131 on: February 09, 2012, 01:22:03 PM »
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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #132 on: February 09, 2012, 01:45:55 PM »
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.

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #133 on: February 09, 2012, 02:11:13 PM »
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#46320611

this is what a real lawyer  says

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #134 on: February 09, 2012, 02:13:02 PM »
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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #135 on: February 09, 2012, 02:35:15 PM »
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…

 

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #136 on: February 09, 2012, 02:52:58 PM »
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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #137 on: February 09, 2012, 02:55:04 PM »
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. 


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #139 on: February 09, 2012, 03:04:46 PM »


Thats the fucking problem!  People of all types dont want this stupid law in the first place! 

 

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #140 on: February 09, 2012, 03:07:28 PM »
all kinds of laws people don't want,your point is ;D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #141 on: February 09, 2012, 03:09:44 PM »
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.

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #142 on: February 09, 2012, 03:11:39 PM »
cheaper in the long run :-*

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #143 on: February 09, 2012, 03:30:22 PM »
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?     

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #144 on: February 09, 2012, 03:34:02 PM »
i have both so i'm good with it :)

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #145 on: February 09, 2012, 03:51:23 PM »
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.”


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #146 on: February 09, 2012, 05:55:10 PM »
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.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #147 on: February 09, 2012, 06:04:33 PM »
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.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #148 on: February 09, 2012, 06:22:56 PM »
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 ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)
« Reply #149 on: February 09, 2012, 06:26:16 PM »
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?