This is called “running interference.”
The American Civil Liberty Union announced today that President Obama’s decision to mandate coverage for birth control does not violate religious liberty.
The ACLU’s Alicia Gay warns that the “powerful lobbying arm of the Catholic Church” mistakenly claims that the HHS contraception mandate violates their religious liberty.
Individuals who choose not to pay for employees’ contraceptives, the ACLU counters, are forcing their beliefs on their employees.
“The fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a right to impose those views on others, including ignoring civil rights laws or denying critical health care,” Gay insists.
Wrong-o. Let’s turn that confusing document written 100 years ago that many on the left find as outdated as Windows 3.1, the Constitution. Its very first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
I realize that some might find that terse language difficult to interpret, but let this non-lawyer take a stab at it. It means Congress can’t pass laws that get in the way of freely practicing one’s faith. It doesn’t say bupkis about “denying health care” that the ACLU’s finest brings up. Not. A. Word. The ACLU can look it up if they don’t wish to take my word for it. It’s on Wikipedia.
In the abortifacient mandate, Congress passed a law that the executive branch is interpreting in a way that Catholic bishops find violates their free exercise of their faith, by forcing them to pay for things that go against their core beliefs. It is the bishops’ job to determine such things, not the ACLU’s. The ACLU isn’t the church. The ACLU in fact tends to hate the church (though it loves it some Islamic terrorists for some reason); that’s written into the organization’s DNA. The ACLU is supposed to exist to defend civil liberties. Going by the plain, terse text of their name, that’s what the C and the L stand for. In this case (and many others), it’s not doing that.
The ACLU also misses the point, intentionally, here:
Director of Washington Legislative Office Laura Murphy insisted on NBC’s Today Show this morning that individuals could still “practice their religion as they see fit,” by not using birth control.
Wrong-o, again. They’re 0-2. Use isn’t the question; being forced to pay for it, or face hefty government fines, is the point. Secondarily, the fact that the Obama administration has granted O-care waivers to unions, corporations, even whole states, but not the church, is relevant. Surely the ACLU sees the equal protection problems with that? No?
These ACLU wingers aren’t stupid. They know what the Constitution says. They just don’t care.
And they’re setting themselves up to look like fools when the Obama gang finally caves on this. And cave, they are likely to do, as another Democrat has come out slamming the mandate.
These ACLU folks are going to need a hanky to wipe the egg off their faces.
The ACLU carrying water for the most lefty president in most people’s memory?
That’s as easy to predict as Nancy Pelosi doing the same thing.
Lefties are so predictable sometimes.
My next prediction… some lefty is gonna come in here and declare that the ACLU is right and we’re all wrong.
“These ACLU wingers aren’t stupid. They know what the Constitution says. They just don’t care.” Actually, they DO care. They are actively hostile to Christianity.
100 years ago?
That’s a joke — see the linked post, and the bit about little Ezra Klein.
Poor Bryan as usual you have it wrong. No one is saying anyone cannot practice their faith. No one is forcing any church to do anything against their faith nor their flock to do anything against their faith. As has been established in 28 states – heck Gov Pataki signed into law that does the very same thing and Bishop Egan (you know the one who said he wishes he never apologized in 2002 for those pedophile priests) began caterwauling that they would have to close Hospitals and Colleges and they even went to court and lost and then appealed and lost and the Supreme Court would not hear is either. Romney did the same thing in MA where 6 Catholic Hospital now provided Insurance offering those same services that you bray about that goes against religious freedom.
Oh those poor Bishops. Georgetown, Fordham, BC, DePaul, Catholic Hospitals and the coup d’etat against your phony argument is Dignity Health offers those very same services.
Let get it on with the Mormon, little Ricky, or Newt who changes religion like babies change diapers.
Thanks for proving me right.
That was me less than 15 minutes ago.
Pregnancy isn’t a disease and health insurance shouldn’t be required to pay for people’s lifestyle choices. And the next administration will undo this idiocy. Birth control, ED drugs and abortions are lifestyle choices people make and those who make should be required to pay for them.
Hate to inform you cubanbob but Birth Control has been available for a long time and 98% of Catholic women seem to like using birth control at some time in their life. Oh and no where does this force any Hospital to do abortions. Heck even Ron Paul said that if his daughter had an honest rape (whatever that is) he would let her take the pile or perform a function that would eliminate any pregnancy. Of course that’s just his daughter and he may not mean it for everyone else.
This is a women’s health issue and maybe you have no understanding of those things. Of course men throughout the ages have tried to control the womb of women and thankfully in this day and age they know what’s best for their bodies.
But I suspect you would prefer forced pregnancies and back alley abortions. What a little man you are
Hate to inform you Flame, but the first amendment trumps your notion of women’s health. One is written into the Constitution, one isn’t.
Confused? Then you must be a liberal.
Next prediction: the lefty will bring up Roe v. Wade as proof that abortion/reproductive health is “in” the Constitution.
See how easy it is to predict the lefties?
Don’t you find the very concept of “forced pregnancies” to be another bizarre liberal concept? They have no problem with women enslaving men for life by letting them get them pregnant in the first place, but asking a woman to inconvenience herself for nine months to save their own child’s life is somehow too great a burden to impose.
What ever happened to that equality BS? Oh! That’s right! We only level the playing field when they are on the low end, never the high end. They want all the rights, with none of the responsibility. A common liberal position.
I’m sorry. I can no longer believe it’s just stupidity and stubbornness. Liberals are evil, incarnate. I think it’s time for the Vatican to start excommunicating Democrats who pretend they’re Catholic, like the Mafia Dons in the ’80s. I wonder how those educated, cosmopolitan, illegal Hispanic voters would like that? They wouldn’t be superstitious much, would they?
You at least should be informed about what you write no? Heck your nominee Romney signed into law in MA forcing Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims (which they comply with). We are not talking Churches or parochial schools but institutions such as Hospitals and Colleges who serve a much wider population. In many states this has already been litigated and found that the government has this ability (NY and CA are two states). Women who work at these hospital don’t need contraception any less than those women who work elsewhere. Plus healthcare that excludes only services used by women have already been shown to be discriminatory. So keep screaming first amendment while us liberals once again drag your conservative sorry axses into the 20th century. Just like we are trying to do with Gay Marriage where once again the conservatives are on the losing side and it’s only a matter of time.
Thankfully conservatives hardly ever win these battles (I can’t think of one anyway) in the long run and just are a break on America becoming a better country. Conservatives are our cross to bear.
“Your nominee Romney”?
Talk about unclear on the concept.
We haven’t picked Romney yet, there’s still a lot of primaries yet to go (even more if we can find all 57 states that Obama spoke about).
And if you’re referring only to Bryan as a Romney supporter, you’re even more clueless, which boggles the mind. Anyone who’s been bothering to read this place knows Bryan was, and still is, a Perry supporter.
Actually I’m a man without a candidate, for what it’s worth. Not that I expect FLib to grok very obvious facts that don’t support his opinion.
He also doesn’t seem to understand the use of the “reply” link, at least not once we’ve reached the max number of nested levels. His reply to me is down at the bottom of the thread.
“Just like we are trying to do with Gay Marriage where once again the conservatives are on the losing side and it’s only a matter of time.”
On the contrary: Liberals don’t reproduce, especially not ones in “gay marriage” situations. Pro-lifers do, so we’re the “winning side” (Posterity belongs to those who show up. Example: Mom vs Liberal Aunt. Mom: 5 kids, 17 grandkids, 3 great-grandkids and counting. LibAunt: 4 kids, one grandchild. All “kids” and spouses are past childbearing age, so no new grandchildren are coming along. Who will be outvoted when the voter rolls are finally cleaned up?)
And the women didn’t have control of their vagina/womb when they got pregnant? I guess you must agree with the feminist/womyn view point of sexual intercourse – it is always “rape”, that no woman agrees to get pregnant or even to have sex. That the sex (otherwise known as “MAKING BABIES”) is completely, 100 percent, out of their control, they aren’t sure how it happened, they must have sat down on an “infected” toilette seat or something.
The idea is laughable that a woman had no control when she got pregnant but must have absolute control after (most liberal positions now-a-days are laughable).
Perhaps you could use a brief lesson in “rights”:
1) their right to birth control or abortion is limited to them or someone else willingly paying for it. To force someone to provide money through insurance premiums for a procedure that goes against their moral (forget religious) values violates their rights (per Walter Williams, a right cannot incur an obligation on the part of someone else – and forcing someone else to pay for it is an obligation).
2) As a “Flaming Liberal” (I assume “flaming” means you are intensely ardent about liberal causes) which is more important? The right to life or the right to chose? For example, if my daughter were raped, would I be within my rights to kill the rapist? After all, if there was zero doubt that he was the one who violently and terribly assaulted my daughter (physically and emotionally, perhaps leaving her scarred for life) then shouldn’t I be able to kill him? Or is life too precious? And if the rapist’s life is too precious to take away (because I have no right to do so) then how is it right for a woman who allowed herself to become pregnant to take away an unborn child’s right to life? Does the rapist have more rights? Or do you stick with the claim that a child yet unborn is nothing more than a bunch of cells and only birth confers upon it any rights? And don’t try the “viable outside of the womb” argument – medical technology has done wonders to save children born many months premature.
DavidW your first paragraph makes no sense unless you always blame the woman if she gets pregnant.
As for having no control it doesn’t matter. She does have control of what she wants to do with her body and forced pregnancies cannot be the solutions. The thankfully have agreed that abortion is legal and she has a right to about the fetus. It’s really that simple – I can just imagine what the response from women would be if the conservative religious wackjobs made abortions illegal. You think Koman had it rough? LOL
As for your idiotic rights argument from Williams – we are talking what is in an insurance policy where everyone pays into a group policy where one doesn’t pick and choose what the basics of that policy covers.
As for your other idiotic analogy – DO you have a right to life or a right to choose? It’s a right to life! Now if you caught the rapist actually raping your daughter or anyone else you certainly would be justified in killing them but afterward – no and I’ll let you guess why as you seem a bit perplexed on how our laws would treat that killing after the fact.
Let’s just look at this from the practical side of things: 44 years ago, some guy named Montini warned that if contraceptive use became widespread, young people would become sexually active outside of marriage (Humanae Vitae, section 17, third sentence). Since teenagers (especially those who don’t have enough self-control to refrain from pre-marital sex) aren’t very reliable, the huge increase in premarital sex has resulted in a huge increase in out-of-wedlock births. Because, there is also this: there are two categories of contraceptives: the kind that doesn’t work and the kind that’s bad for you; so, all the women who don’t like strokes and don’t like the girly-man trout in Colorado don’t use ABC; they use nothing or a kind of contraceptive that doesn’t work (condoms, etc).
And now the grabbermint says that in order to decrease out-of-wedlock births, they need to use the special kind of birth control that you get by violating Catholics’ First Amendment rights, even though widespread contraceptive use has heretofore resulted in skyrocketing out-of-wedlock births? Guess what! That Dead White Guy named Montini predicted that, too. Humanae Vitae, section 17, second paragraph talks about government taking charge of couples’ reproduction. Whooo, it’s like this Montini guy talked to God or something, eh?
Heh. “Dead White Guy named Montini,” indeed.
“Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.” Blah blah blah. Like that would ever happen (coughChinacough).
There are also those prominent lefties that revere China… and their totalitarian form of government.
Dude was prescient.
I’m not of the same… shall we say, big global group as that dead white guy, but I may just have to pick up his book.
CW, Here’s a free copy.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Birth control is self control.
Simple stalinist regime building.
Just imagine what the subversives would do with a second mandate.
And it’s nice to see the liberal trolls around here: imagine what they would say if Congress would pass any law violating islamic principles ! Stupid tools…
PS And in fact they do fight against any attempt to stop any implementation of shari’a…
Conservative Wanderer – If you seriously think Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum have a shot as the nominee you’re delusional. The Republican establishment will not stand for it. You are getting Romney whether you like it or not as he has the resources and the others don’t. Oh and I don’t think Bryan is a Romney supporter but he certainly will be when he gets the nomination.
Could these four clowns be any better to see the bankruptcy and decay of the Republican party? I don’t think so.
In related news, according to Those In The Know, Dewey defeated Truman in 1948.
Clinton was also supposed to beat Obama in the 2008 Democratic Primaries according to prognosticators.
Political predictions are frequently wrong.
Romney hasn’t won yet, and as a child I was taught not to count chickens before they hatch.
But, you go on deluding yourself… it makes you so much easier to predict, and thus to thwart.
– you and Bryan are enjoying this.
“I can do this all day.” — Steve Rogers
I shouldn’t be, tho… I should be concentrating on The Day Job, at least for the next couple of hours.
– is popping up at all the other PJM blogs — when will Roger institute registration? Might as well make the guy a Contributor.
– will be forced to close and so end all the services to illegals.
In “The Hunt for Red Oktober,” the Americans puzzle how they will get determined Soviet crew to abandon their own submarine within enemy territory and under fire from their mortal enemies. Who would leave? First, you’re underwater with nowhere to go. Two, you’d have to be crazy to give in to your philosophical enemies.
In the end, Jack Ryan’s plan of announcing an irreparable radiation leak on board the submarine sends selfsame crew scrambling to launch the boat to the surface and evacuate. This leaves the boat happily in American hands.
Obama and his diabolical, faith-hating, communist syndicate has poisoned the air.
They must purchase health insurance for their employees or be fined.
They must pay for any mandates which are abhorrent to them.
If they don’t offer health insurance, their workplaces are no longer competitive.
If the employees don’t get insurance from the church organizations, they will have to buy it from the government.
When the church will not provide the insurance, their operations will be suspended either through the cost of punitive fining or regulated “closed for business” by fiat.
Thus, all formerly private charitable service will now become a client of the only other helpers present: the state.
They intend to drive all need toward the government and away from charity. This is why they wanted to take away charitable deductions. They have no care whatever as to the death and horror they will cause. They never have.
The ACLU is just another bag of shit carried by your marxist spade president…I pray every day all you marxist sons of bitches die a slow painful death.
Is free contraception for women a “civil right” now? Because I know a lack of same would certainly not constitute a “denial of critical health care.” Who knew the legal brain trust at the ACLU were such hacks.
I don’t know what the Flamer thinks goes on in Catholic hospitals, but they do dispense birth control and perform procedures like tubal ligations, hysterectomies and even D&Cs. While it’s true they don’t perform elective abortive procedures, few hospitals do. In any event, it’s not the point. Perhaps he avoids staying on point because the point issue is fairly clear cut.
– used to work in such a hospital. Remember the hell Bush caught over regulation of stem cell research? Then 9/11 happened and changed the subject.
ACLU = Anti Christian Litigation Unit
Bryan
“The ACLU is supposed to exist to defend civil liberties.”
I learn new things every day. Here I thought that the ACLU exists to make small towns take down their Christmas decorations. Thanks for cleaing that up.