Author Topic: "If Obama Mandate stands - All Catholic Hospitals will close within 2 years"  (Read 2721 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
gotta separate church and state, fellahs.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
gotta separate church and state, fellahs.

Agreed - repeal obamacare and tell Obama to fuck off. 

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
 My hope would be for obama voters to get tossed in the street first, but that is not going to happen.   
you're right; it wont happen. we have the $$. are we better off now than 4 years ago? YOU BET!  Markets up, return on investments best in years. thank you, barry.
w

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
you're right; it wont happen. we have the $$. are we better off now than 4 years ago? YOU BET!  Markets up, return on investments best in years. thank you, barry.

Incredible.   So you want to give him credit any time something goes well, yet make excuses for anything bad? 

Oly15

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 643

There is probably a committee and they will probably hold to their belief system and tell the communist demo to go back to hell where he came from and toss the patients into the Obama ER. 

Too fucking bad too as for who the patients voted for.  The nation voted for a naked communist demon in Obama and deserves every single miserable result of those policies as a result. 

I warned everyone many times in 2008 before voting for this anti-american zealot and tyrant and most refused to wake the fuck up before voting for Hope & Change, now we deal w the ramifications of those morons for voting for this. 

Elections have consequences.   In 2008 we elected a communit tyrant hell bent on destroying the nation and now we are dealing with the fruits of that.   


Lol you think it woulda been different with mccain. Theyre all controlled by the same people..

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
If the Catholic church knows ANYTHING it's that dumb people scare easily


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Catholic bishops exhort faithful to oppose Obamacare in a Sunday message
Speroforum ^ | March 2, 2012 | Martin Barillas
Posted on March 3, 2012 6:00:03 PM EST by NYer

The U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops is issuing a flyer to be distributed at Masses over the March 3-4 weekend that asks their congregation to voice their opposition to the Obama administration's requirement that all employers pay for their employees' contraceptives. The mandate, which President Obama has given just one year for compliance, would force Catholic hospitals - for instance - to pay for contraceptives, even though contrary to Catholic teachings. Besides the Catholic bishops, other religious groups, including non-Christians and secular people, have criticized the Obama administration's move as an unconstitutional intromission into religious freedoms and the freedom of association. 

The bishops ask their congregations to contact their Members of Congress to voice their opposition to the rule. Here follows a slightly abridged version of the Sunday message:

 

Sweeping HHS Mandate Stands, Violating Conscience Rights and Religious Liberty

Congress Must Act to Fix the Problem

On January 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reaffirmed a rule that virtually all private health care plans must cover sterilization, abortifacients, and contraception. The exemption provided for "religious employers" was so narrow that it failed to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations—including Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities—that help millions every year. Ironically, not even Jesus and his disciples would have qualified for the exemption, because it excludes those who mainly serve people of another faith.

On February 10, the Obama Administration made this rule final “without change”; delayed enforcement for a year against religious nonprofits that were still not exempted (our charities, hospitals, and colleges); and promised to develop more regulations to “accommodate” them by the end of that additional year. But, as explained below, that promised “accommodation” still forces them to pay for “services” that violate their religious convictions.

The original rule that violated our religious liberty so severely has not been changed, but finalized.

After touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS instead finalized the original rule that was first issued in August 2011 “without change.” So the offensive definition of “religious employer”—which excludes our charities, hospitals, and colleges because they serve people of other faiths—is still in place, and those institutions are still subject to the mandate.

HHS has promised some kind of “accommodation,” but only after the election.

HHS said it would take an additional year to develop more regulations to “accommodate” religiously-affiliated charities, schools, and hospitals that still fall outside the “religious employer” exemption. The impact of these additional rules will not be felt until after the election, the only point of public accountability for the Executive Branch. This eliminates an important incentive for HHS to provide the best protection for religious liberty The promised “accommodation”—even at its best—would still force our institutions to violate their beliefs.

Under the proposed “accommodation,” if an employee of these religious institutions wants coverage of contraception or sterilization directly from the insurer, the objecting employer is still forced to pay for it as a part of the employer’s insurance plan. Since there is no other source, the funds to pay for that coverage must come from the premiums of the employer and fellow employees, even those who object in conscience.

There is no exemption for objecting insurers, secular employers, for-profit religious employers, or individuals.

The U.S. bishops defend religious liberty for all, and so have repeatedly identified all the stakeholders in the process whose religious freedom is threatened by the mandate—all employers, insurers, and individuals, not just religious employers. Now, all insurers, including self-insurers, must provide the coverage to any employee who wants it. In turn, all individuals who pay premiums have no escape from subsidizing that coverage. And only employers that are both non-profit and religious may qualify for the limited “accommodation.”

We urgently need legislation to correct the mandate’s threats to religious liberty and conscience rights. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act has been introduced in Congress (H.R. 1179, S. 1467) to ensure that those who participate in the market for health insurance “retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions.” 

TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: bhofascism; catholic; hhs; mandate; obama; obamacare; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]


Speroforum editor Martin Barillas is a former US diplomat, who also worked as a democracy advocate and election observer in Latin America. He is also a freelance translator.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Cardinal Dolan blasts White House contraception plan as 'freedom of religion battle'
NY Post ^ | 3/3/2012 | KEVIN SHEEHAN and GARY BUISO
Posted on March 3, 2012 3:21:22 PM EST by GreaterSwiss

It’s holy war!

Cardinal Timothy Dolan ramped up the battle with the White House today, blasting the government for a controversial new regulation that would require providing free contraceptive services to workers of religious institutions.

“Don’t impose your teaching upon us and make us do as a church what we find unconscionable to do!” the freshly minted prince of the church told a roaring crow of 1,000 at Holy Trinity Diocesan HS in Hicksville.

In a blistering attack interlaced with humor, Dolan never mentioned President Obama by name — only his policies.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...




BRING IT ON OBAMA! 


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama Risks $100 Billion If Catholic Hospitals Close
The Fiscal Times ^ | March 1, 2012 | EDWARD MORRISSEY
Posted on March 3, 2012 7:20:49 PM EST by Mrs. Don-o


Perhaps Barack Obama assumed that religious leaders would simply offer a token protest to his new mandate for religious organizations to provide free birth control, even when contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization violate the core doctrines of their faith. The president might have had reason to expect that Catholic bishops wouldn’t put up much of a fight, considering their support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as ObamaCare, from which Health and Human Services derives the authority to dictate their coverage requirements to employers.

Obama has enjoyed significant support from Catholics, the largest religious group in the country, winning the Catholic vote by nine points in 2008 and relying on their support to pass the PPACA. However, the Catholic bishops have united against the Obama administration after the imposition of the mandate, along with leaders of other religious denominations. Richard Land, who leads the largest Southern Baptist organization in the U.S., proclaimed solidarity with Catholics and pledged to go to jail before submitting to the HHS mandate.

Evangelical leaders Chuck Colson and Timothy George declared this the moment when Christian organizations would have to choose between Caesar and God. Jewish theologian and scholar Meir Soloveichik signed a joint statement of opposition in The Wall Street Journal, along with Colson and Bishop Donald Wuerl – a statement noting that stories "involving a Catholic, a Protestant and a Jew typically end with a punch line,” but that they consider this to be no laughing matter.

The strongest statement of opposition came this week from President Obama’s home town of Chicago. Francis Cardinal George sent a message to parishioners in the archdiocese that the Catholic Church would shut down its various institutions in the community before violating the core doctrine of Humanae Vitae by providing contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients to its employees, free or otherwise. In a lengthy missive, George remarked that Catholic bishops are fighting for a separation of church and state, and that the mandate represents an unprecedented arrogance in Obama’s attempt to have government define the boundaries between faith and works.

“Liberty of religion is more than freedom of worship,” George wrote, noting that even the Soviet Union allowed people to go to church, “if you could find one.” The HHS mandate emulates the Soviet experience, George argued, in declaring that only places of worship demonstrate the free exercise of religion protected by the Constitution, and not “schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith.”

If the Obama administration insisted on enforcing its mandate on Catholic organizations, George concluded, then "two Lents from now” their listing of Catholic hospitals and health-care institutions would be empty.

What would that mean to the U.S., and to Obama's health care reform mandate? Put simply, it would create a disaster for the delivery of health care in the country, and rapidly escalate the public costs of health care.

The Catholic Church has perhaps the most extensive private health-care delivery system in the nation. It operates 12.6 percent of hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., accounting for 15.6 percent of all admissions and 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses, a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion. Whom do these hospitals serve? Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

The poor and working class families that get assistance from Catholic benefactors would end up having to pay more for their care than they do under the current system. Rural patients would have to travel farther for medical care, and services like social work and breast-cancer screenings would fall to the less-efficient government-run institutions.

That would not only impact the poor and working class patients, but would create much longer wait times for everyone else in the system. Finally, over a half-million people employed by Catholic hospitals now would lose their jobs almost overnight, which would have a big impact on the economy as well as on health care.

Some may doubt that the bishops would create this kind of havoc and disruption, and perhaps President Obama believes Cardinal George and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be bluffing. However, Obama may want to read St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, and his Principle and Foundation of faith, which informs Catholics on the priority of salvation.

The first task of mankind, according to St. Ignatius, is to serve God and “save his soul,” and “other things on the face of the earth” should be used only as long as they serve that purpose. When they become a hindrance to salvation, St. Ignatius warns to “rid himself of them.”

If Obama insists on forcing the Catholic Church to fund and facilitate access to products and services they believe imperil their own souls and those of others, the bishops will simply stop employing people in these religious organizations – and once those doors close, they may never reopen.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
what's funny is that while these priests are playing politics from the pulpit about 98% of the woman in the sitting in the pews are on the pill or using some other form of contraception and the men are probably about the same %

I wonder if they devoted any time to that dude who was supposedly hanged in Iran for being a christian


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
what's funny is that while these priests are playing politics from the pulpit about 98% of the woman in the sitting in the pews are on the pill or using some other form of contraception and the men are probably about the same %

I wonder if they devoted any time to that dude who was supposedly hanged in Iran for being a christian




Funny how there has never been a national outrage over bc until that communist jihadi obama lied to the bishop and stirred this all u w that skank she man sebellius

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana

Funny how there has never been a national outrage over bc until that communist jihadi obama lied to the bishop and stirred this all u w that skank she man sebellius

Even funnier was that Repubs actually were in favor of mandating contraception coverage just a few years ago

Why the sudden 180 degree turn

Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates

Republicans are fighting a birth-control rule in President Obama's healthcare law, but several states have enacted contraceptive mandates with the support of GOP lawmakers and governors.

February 15, 2012|By Kim Geiger and Noam N. Levey, Washington BureauReporting from Washington — Since President Obama moved to require Catholic hospitals and universities to offer their employees contraceptive health benefits, Republicans have rushed to accuse the administration of an unprecedented attack on religious freedoms.

None has been more forceful than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.


Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.

In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.

In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."

At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.

The state laws were the product of a campaign by women's groups and others that began after insurers started covering Viagra for men.


The cause has always drawn more support from Democrats, who pushed successfully in 2010 to include a provision in the healthcare law designed to expand women's access to preventive services like contraception.

But until recently, many Republicans also supported expanding access to contraceptives, even if it meant angering some religious constituencies.

In 1997, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and then-Rep.James C. Greenwood of Pennsylvania cosponsored bills aimed at requiring contraceptive coverage nationally. Seven additional Senate Republicans and 15 other House Republicans signed on to the legislation, though it never became law.

Three years later, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination, ruled all employers with more than 15 workers must cover contraceptives for women if they offer health plans that cover preventive services and prescription drugs.

When Republicans took control of Washington after Bush won the 2000 presidential election, his administration could have challenged that requirement, as it did other mandates.

But in his 2001 confirmation hearings to be attorney general, John Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would "defend the rule" promulgated by the EEOC.

The original Obama regulation, released in January, went further than any state by requiring that women receive contraceptive benefits without co-pays or deductibles, as required for all preventive care under the healthcare law. But in exempting only some religious organizations, the administration followed what had become the approach used by many states.

The administration would have exempted an employer that "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," primarily employs and serves people of the same religion, and is a nonprofit.

That standard was understood to exempt churches, but not religiously affiliated hospitals and universities.

In the face of fierce blow-back, the administration has since proposed a compromise that makes insurers, rather than employers, responsible for the cost of contraceptive coverage for employees of religiously affiliated institutions.

Congressional Republicans are pushing legislation to exempt all employers from providing contraceptive coverage if it goes against their beliefs.

In 2000, when Iowa became one of the first states to enact a contraceptive mandate, the Republican Legislature overwhelmingly backed the bill, which has no exemption for religious employers of any kind.
Even one of the law's few opponents did not move to exempt religious employers at the time, records show. Republican Rep. Steve King, a leading conservative who was then a state senator, instead proposed to exempt employers who did not cover Viagra. "We were not fighting the battle over conscience protection then," King said in an interview this week.

In Arizona, state Rep. Linda Binder, a pro-choice Republican, formed a bipartisan coalition to push her bill, which exempted churches but not other church-affiliated institutions, through the Republican-controlled Legislature. Then-Gov. Jane Hull, a Republican and a Catholic, signed the measure into law.

In New York, a similar law also won GOP support in the Legislature. It was signed in 2001 by Gov. George E. Pataki, another Republican.

Four years later, the Arkansas law easily cleared that state's Legislature, with help from Republican lawmakers, including two GOP cosponsors. Huckabee signed it in April 2005.

He defended the law in a statement. "Religious employers are not required to comply with this policy," he said. "My position is, and always has been, that religious entities shouldn't be forced to pay for contraception."

But like the original federal regulation proposed by Obama, the Arkansas law did not exempt church-affiliated hospitals and universities. It exempts only "religious employers" that are nonprofit organizations whose primary mission is "the inculcation of religious values," and primarily employ people who share the same religion, a standard few Catholic hospitals meet.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
There’ll be hell to pay (Cardinal Dolan’s Pill pledge to Obama)
NY Post ^ | March 4, 2012 | KEVIN SHEEHAN and GARY BUISO
Posted on March 4, 2012 8:11:38 AM EST by NYer

Timothy Cardinal Dolan ramped up the rhetoric in his battle with the White House over contraception policy yesterday — and promised some political payback.

“Don’t impose your teaching upon us and make us do as a church what we find unconscionable to do!” the freshly minted prince of the church told a roaring crowd of 1,000 at Holy Trinity Diocesan HS in Hicksville, LI, referring to a government plan to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception to workers.

“The Health and Human Services fight is a freedom-of-religion battle. It is not about contraception. It is not about women’s health,” Dolan said.

“No, we are talking about an unwarranted, unprecedented, radical intrusion into the interior life of, integrity of a church’s ability to teach, serve and sanctify on its own.”

In a blistering attack interlaced with humor, Dolan never mentioned President Obama by name — only his policies. And the cardinal promised to put the political muscle of 78 million American Catholics to work against the enemies of free religion.

“President Johnson said, as an American, I look to the church — I look to religion as a beehive. If you leave them alone, they’re going to give you tons of their honey. But if you stick your head in there, you’re going to get stung bad.”

The cardinal, dressed in black and wearing his priestly collar, warned that the sting may come in the voting booth.

“I’d recommend starting voter-registration drives at our parishes. Not only is it going to help churches, it is going to help our American republic. More voters the better.”

And he said he’s confident he’s not alone in the fight.

“We look up and see people who share our values and our vision,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Even funnier was that Repubs actually were in favor of mandating contraception coverage just a few years ago

Why the sudden 180 degree turn

Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates

Republicans are fighting a birth-control rule in President Obama's healthcare law, but several states have enacted contraceptive mandates with the support of GOP lawmakers and governors.

February 15, 2012|By Kim Geiger and Noam N. Levey, Washington BureauReporting from Washington — Since President Obama moved to require Catholic hospitals and universities to offer their employees contraceptive health benefits, Republicans have rushed to accuse the administration of an unprecedented attack on religious freedoms.

None has been more forceful than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who accused Obama of "a direct violation of the 1st Amendment." But years before the current partisan firestorm, GOP lawmakers and governors around the country, including Huckabee, backed similar mandates.


Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.

In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors.

In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."

At the federal level, President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000.

The state laws were the product of a campaign by women's groups and others that began after insurers started covering Viagra for men.


The cause has always drawn more support from Democrats, who pushed successfully in 2010 to include a provision in the healthcare law designed to expand women's access to preventive services like contraception.

But until recently, many Republicans also supported expanding access to contraceptives, even if it meant angering some religious constituencies.

In 1997, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and then-Rep.James C. Greenwood of Pennsylvania cosponsored bills aimed at requiring contraceptive coverage nationally. Seven additional Senate Republicans and 15 other House Republicans signed on to the legislation, though it never became law.

Three years later, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination, ruled all employers with more than 15 workers must cover contraceptives for women if they offer health plans that cover preventive services and prescription drugs.

When Republicans took control of Washington after Bush won the 2000 presidential election, his administration could have challenged that requirement, as it did other mandates.

But in his 2001 confirmation hearings to be attorney general, John Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would "defend the rule" promulgated by the EEOC.

The original Obama regulation, released in January, went further than any state by requiring that women receive contraceptive benefits without co-pays or deductibles, as required for all preventive care under the healthcare law. But in exempting only some religious organizations, the administration followed what had become the approach used by many states.

The administration would have exempted an employer that "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," primarily employs and serves people of the same religion, and is a nonprofit.

That standard was understood to exempt churches, but not religiously affiliated hospitals and universities.

In the face of fierce blow-back, the administration has since proposed a compromise that makes insurers, rather than employers, responsible for the cost of contraceptive coverage for employees of religiously affiliated institutions.

Congressional Republicans are pushing legislation to exempt all employers from providing contraceptive coverage if it goes against their beliefs.

In 2000, when Iowa became one of the first states to enact a contraceptive mandate, the Republican Legislature overwhelmingly backed the bill, which has no exemption for religious employers of any kind.
Even one of the law's few opponents did not move to exempt religious employers at the time, records show. Republican Rep. Steve King, a leading conservative who was then a state senator, instead proposed to exempt employers who did not cover Viagra. "We were not fighting the battle over conscience protection then," King said in an interview this week.

In Arizona, state Rep. Linda Binder, a pro-choice Republican, formed a bipartisan coalition to push her bill, which exempted churches but not other church-affiliated institutions, through the Republican-controlled Legislature. Then-Gov. Jane Hull, a Republican and a Catholic, signed the measure into law.

In New York, a similar law also won GOP support in the Legislature. It was signed in 2001 by Gov. George E. Pataki, another Republican.

Four years later, the Arkansas law easily cleared that state's Legislature, with help from Republican lawmakers, including two GOP cosponsors. Huckabee signed it in April 2005.

He defended the law in a statement. "Religious employers are not required to comply with this policy," he said. "My position is, and always has been, that religious entities shouldn't be forced to pay for contraception."

But like the original federal regulation proposed by Obama, the Arkansas law did not exempt church-affiliated hospitals and universities. It exempts only "religious employers" that are nonprofit organizations whose primary mission is "the inculcation of religious values," and primarily employ people who share the same religion, a standard few Catholic hospitals meet.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/15/nation/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216


this about sums it up  :D :D


chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
that's right; keep talking politics; and all churches will lose their tax exempt status.
way to go, catholics!
w

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Priest warns Obama: Better knock the Catholic Church out now - you’ve awakened the giant
Life Site News ^ | 03/02/2012 | John-Henry Westen
Posted on March 4, 2012 10:20:50 PM EST by Domestic Church

Fr. John Hollowell’s truly amazing monologue needs to be spread far and wide. It’s a wake up call, and one of the most encouraging statements I’ve heard in a long time. It’s a Divine battle cry!

The talk heats up after minute 2 where he notes in this talk addressed to Planned Parenthood Pres. Cecile Richards that “we have not doubt” that in the future Planned Parenthood will be seen as the “slave traders, the Nazis, the Communists and all those groups that seek to oppress people.”

He then warns PP and President Obama: “You better knock us out now. You and the President better knock us out right now, because Cecile, I can promise you - Here comes the Catholic Church ... you’ve awakened a sleeping giant.”

“Priests and bishops that have in the past been content to remain quiet are no longer so. ... The Truth is being rained down everywhere. ... Here comes the Catholic Church.”

He notes that PP since its founding “have proclaimed yourselves sworn enemies of the Catholic Church,” but “we’re in the ring now, the gloves are off.” He acknowledges that Cecile has every worldly advantage in her corner - the President of the United States, the media. But Goliath too had every worldly advantage.

The powerful talk ends quoting Tolkein: “The board is set, the pieces are now in motion, at last we come to it - the great battle of our age.”


http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/priest-warns-obama-better-knock-the-catholic-church-out-now-youve-awakened



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Church Could Be Forced To 'Give Up' Public Work, Cardinal George Warns
EWTN.com ^ | 2/28/12 | Cardinal George




The Obama administration is effectively telling Catholics to abandon their work in the public square, according to Chicago's Cardinal Francis E. George.

'This year, 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. This is not a voluntary sacrifice,' warned the cardinal and former president of the U.S. Catholic bishops' conference.

In his Feb. 26 Catholic New World column, the cardinal said these public ministries may come to an end because of the 'much-discussed Department of Health and Human Services regulations now filed and promulgated for implementation beginning Aug. 1 of this year.'

The rules in question, formulated as part of federal health care reform, force many religious institutions to provide employees with contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing drugs, without a co-pay through their health care plans.

Unless the rule is halted, Cardinal George said, institutions may be forced to choose between dropping their religious identity or abandoning their work.

He offered a striking picture of '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,' he explained.

The first would be to 'secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop.'

The second choice would involve paying 'exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable.'

A ministry's only other choices would involve transferring ownership to a non-Catholic group or the government ' or shutting down altogether.

In his column, Cardinal George also argued against tactics he said were being used to marginalize the Church in its opposition to the contraception mandate.

One such argument claims that 'the majority of Catholics use artificial contraception,' and Church institutions should therefore be forced to provide it to employees.

But this argument assumes that the moral law should conform to human behavior, rather than the other way around.

'Behavior doesn't determine morality. If it can be shown that a majority of Catholic students cheat on their exams, it is still wrong to cheat on exams. Trimming morality to how we behave guts the Gospel call to conversion of life and rejection of sin.'

Advocates of the contraception mandate also call attention to some Catholics' disagreement with Church teaching.

Cardinal George noted that there have 'always been those whose personal faith is not adequate to the faith of the Church.' But this does not change the fact that bishops 'are the successors of the apostles; they collectively receive the authority to teach and govern that Christ bestowed upon the apostles.'

The bishops, he said, speak 'for the Catholic and apostolic faith. Those who hold that faith gather with them; others go their own way. They are and should be free to do so, but they deceive themselves and others in calling their organizations Catholic.'

The cardinal invited the Catholic laity, and other concerned citizens, to 'step back and understand what is happening to our country as the church is despoiled of her institutions and as freedom of conscience and of religion become a memory from a happier past.'

'The suffering being imposed on the church and on society now is not a voluntary penance. We should both work and pray to be delivered from it.'


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
HHS mandate could close 13 percent of the nation’s hospitals
Life Site News ^ | 3-5-12 | Ben Johnson




The nation’s Catholic bishops have vowed to close their religious institutions rather than comply with the HHS mandate that they provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. In a column printed on CatholicNewWorld, Francis Cardinal George urged people to purchase a copy of the Archdiocesan directory “as a souvenir,” because in two years the page containing a list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions “will be blank.”

Ed Morrissey of the Hot Air blog calculated what it would mean if the Catholic bishops shut down all religious institutions that are ineligible for the conscience clause under the health care reform law.

“The Catholic Church…operates 12.6 percent of hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., accounting for 15.6 percent of all admissions and 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses, a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion,” he wrote. “Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.” All in all, “more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals.”

As a result,120,000 beds would disappear from the U.S. health care system.

“I think the contingency is remote that all the Catholic hospitals will close,” Richard Ralston, the executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, told LifeSiteNews.com. “If they’re put in an intolerable moral position, they would have the right to do that.”

The closure of Catholic, Southern Baptist, and other religious institutions is but one element among many that critics say would reduce the supply of physicians and medical institutions once the president’s health care reform is implemented – reducing supply while tens of millions of newly insured Americans swell demand.


(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Who is using scare tactics? Certainly not the church. The church is simply stating what the outcome will be if they are forced to transgress their own religious beliefs.

The people who are using scare tactics are those that claim that the Catholic church will "kick kids to the curb" or will prevent care for patients. Who said these things? Obviously, if the Catholic hospitals close, those patients will be transferred to other hospitals. Care will continue for them.

If obama the clown refuses to back down, I hope the church shuts down THEIR hospitals. I hope they remember that certain principles are more important than money. I hope all other denominations rise up and do the same thing.

I see people blaming the church, instead of Obama. Obama started this fight, not the church. It's as if you idiots believe that everyone should just fall in line and accept whatever the great god obama dictates we should have or do. It just doesn't work that way, ladies.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Who is using scare tactics? Certainly not the church. The church is simply stating what the outcome will be if they are forced to transgress their own religious beliefs.

The people who are using scare tactics are those that claim that the Catholic church will "kick kids to the curb" or will prevent care for patients. Who said these things? Obviously, if the Catholic hospitals close, those patients will be transferred to other hospitals. Care will continue for them.

If obama the clown refuses to back down, I hope the church shuts down THEIR hospitals. I hope they remember that certain principles are more important than money. I hope all other denominations rise up and do the same thing.

I see people blaming the church, instead of Obama. Obama started this fight, not the church. It's as if you idiots believe that everyone should just fall in line and accept whatever the great god obama dictates we should have or do. It just doesn't work that way, ladies.

the church makes plenty of money from those hospitals and since that is their primary objective on this planet (besides raping children) they will continue to do it


dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
the church makes plenty of money from those hospitals and since that is their primary objective on this planet (besides raping children) they will continue to do it




The Catholic church has stated that their religious beliefs are of highest importance to them. Lets see if they are willing to close those hospitals. If they don't, then they deserve everything they get.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

The Catholic church has stated that their religious beliefs are of highest importance to them. Lets see if they are willing to close those hospitals. If they don't, then they deserve everything they get.

The communist left as embodied by Straw Vagina, Obama, Cuntlosi, boxer, Barney Fag, et al are going to cause a civil war in this country by forcing their treason and collapse down everyones' throats. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39455
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
First Plaintiff Beats Obama HHS-Abortion Mandate in Court (Breaking News!)
 Life News ^ | July 27, 2012 | Steven Ertelt


Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012

A federal court issued an order Friday that halts enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court.

The mandate has generated massive opposition from pro-life groups because it forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.



Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business.

The decision only applies to the company, and the court emphasized the ruling did not apply nationwide.

Since Hercules Industries would be required to begin offering the new coverage when its self-insured plan renews on November 1, Alliance Defending Freedom has requested a preliminary injunction that could prevent the government from enforcing the mandate against the company by August 1, the date when the company would need to begin the process of making changes to its plan.

As is the case with many religious groups or employers, the mandate could subject the Newlands to millions of dollars in fines per year if they don’t abide by its requirements.

“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman after the decision.

Bowman added, “The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama administration ultimately has its way. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

The pro-abortion ACLU has criticized the ruling, saying, “This is not religious freedom, this is discrimination. Real religious liberty gives everyone the right to make their own decisions about their own health, including whether and when to use birth control. It doesn’t give anyone the right to impose their beliefs on others.”

In his order, Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. As the Tenth Circuit has noted, ‘there is a strong public interest in the free exercise of religion even where that interest may conflict with [another statutory scheme]….’ Accordingly, the public interest favors entry of an injunction in this case.”

Bowman said Judge Kane explained that the government’s “harm pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.”

According to the brief Alliance Defending Freedom filed along with the motion requesting the injunction, “the mandate disregards religious conscience rights that are enshrined in federal statutory and constitutional law.” It also violates the First Amendment “due to its massive inapplicability and its discrimination among religions,” the brief explains.

Federal judges have dismissed two other lawsuits filed against the mandate.

 

In the second case, Judge James E. Boasberg of the D.C. Federal Court threw out the lawsuit Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, the first plaintiff to file suit against the mandate, filed earlier this year. Judge Boasberg said he dismissed the lawsuit because the Obama administration is revising the initial rule it release forcing religious groups to pay for the drugs that violate their conscience and beliefs.

He wrote that he favored “deferring review until the agency’s position on exemptions to the contraceptive-coverage requirement is settled.”

After the first case was dismissed, Kyle Duncan, general counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, attorneys for plaintiffs, said the decision turns on technicalities and doesn’t decide the merits of the dispute.

Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university, said before the decision he thought the Obama administrations argument will not stand up in court.

“It doesn’t argue that the mandate is legal; it doesn’t argue that the mandate is constitutional,” Goodrich said. “Instead, it begs the court to ignore the lawsuit because the government plans to change the mandate at some unspecified date in the future.”

“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty “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.”

In its legal papers, the Obama administration did not defend the constitutionality of the mandate, but said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the administration plans to revise the mandate to make it on insurance companies to pay for coverage rather than employers, who will still have to make referrals.

Obama’s February 10 “accommodation” came under increasing fire on numerous fronts. A diverse coalition of over 300 scholars and religious leaders have called the maneuver “unacceptable,” because it still forces many religious organizations to violate their core religious beliefs. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has also denounced it.

The panel that put together the mandate has been condemned for only having pro-abortion members even though polling shows Americans are opposed to the mandate.







good.