Obama is attacking Religious Freedom in America (Just like everything else)

[Necrosis]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.     

[Soul Crusher]

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…

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Necrosis]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

who is telling them they have to purchase this free fucking program? lol.

You really are stupid.   Nothing is free moron.   

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[240 is Back]

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? 

[Soul Crusher]

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?   

[240 is Back]

what benefits are the govt trying to mandate companies have to give their workers?

what is the cost to businesses, and benefits to society? 

[Soul Crusher]

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? 
   

[240 is Back]

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.

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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?

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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

[Necrosis]

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.

[Necrosis]

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?

[LurkerNoMore]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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.  

[LurkerNoMore]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[LurkerNoMore]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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