On a hastily arranged conference call with press this morning, the Obama administration announced that President Obama will reveal changes to the administration’s contraceptive/abortifacient mandate. That mandate, part of the still unpopular ObamaCare legislation, forced religious hospitals and charities to purchase insurance that includes provisions that are at odds with core church teachings. It has created a firestorm for the administration over the past week. Catholic bishops in a majority of the nation’s parishes had spoken out against the mandate from their pulpits, rejecting it for forcing religious hospitals to purchase insurance that includes contraceptive, sterilization and abortifacient services that are contrary to the church’s core teachings. Over the ensuing days, a broad coalition of Catholic and Protestant leaders, current and former officials in both parties and even liberal members of the press spoke out strongly against the mandate.
The White House conference call was several minutes late getting started. Senior administration officials “on background,” but who have publicly supported the mandate as it has been rolled out, briefed reporters on the new policy. The White House offered no one on the call who opposed the mandate. The administration officials admitted that the White House did not speak with church leaders to determine whether the policy change would be acceptable to them. The senior official instead cited the praise of Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards, who has been a driving force behind the mandate all along and would be expected to back the administration. The administration official refused to discuss in detail the role played by Vice President Joe Biden, who opposed the mandate behind the scenes and has publicly called for a compromise.
It was clear from the tone of the conference call that the administration has placed its “core principle” of providing “free” contraceptive coverage above the core American principle of religious freedom. The officials cited that principle repeatedly. The officials insisted that insurance companies will not be allowed to charge any additional premiums to cover the costs of the contraceptive mandate, but only vaguely answered a question regarding whether the administration has discussed the policy with insurance companies. How will insurance companies pay for the “free” contraception and abortifacient coverage? The Obama White House officials said that the costs of the “free” coverage will be offset by reductions in unwanted pregnancies, a dubious and speculative answer. The officials restated “We think this is the way forward” to achieve its “core principle” several times over the course of the call.
President Barack Obama will officially announce the policy changes later today.
Update: Predictable — Planned Parenthood supports the policy change.
Update: LifeNews reports:
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.
Update: The president just announced the policy. The “compromise” he described is phony. The administration negotiated with itself and its Planned Parenthood allies to come up with a way to window dress what is the same policy that created the controversy in the first place. Religious employers will still be paying for the insurance coverage, which will now include the controversial services. The only change is that the administration says it is now forcing the insurance companies, rather than the institutions, to pick up the cost. Only in a fantasy world would anyone expect that insurance premiums will not rise as a direct result of this mandate. The fact that the White House tipped Planned Parenthood ahead of the policy announcement, but did not even discuss it with church leaders, gives the game away: The administration is dead set on pursuing its “core principle” no matter the objections or constitutional problems raised.
Exemptions for the most voters?
If Planned Parenthood likes it, it must not be much of a compromise.
In the dictionary, under Distinction without a Difference, it says, “See Barack Obama’s Contraception Compromise.”
This is no ‘Compromise” whatsoever Obambi and his Regime are still ‘cocking a snook’ at the Constitution. They are now just MANDATING that Insurance Companies provide this service “free of charge” instead of the Church. But by what Constitutional right do they have to simply change the recipient of the ‘mandate’. Its the mandate itself that they Constitutionally have no right to impose.
Can someone also please explain what ‘illness” pregnancy itself is that it must have ‘medical’ treatment to avoid. This is yet another Left wing moonbat scam defining pregnancy as an ILLNESS. Its all about control folks everything these left wing moonbats do is about CONTROL.
It is a sad day when we have a President who thinks playing a sophomoric semantic game with the word “free” gives an institution moral cover to violate their fundamental beliefs. It either shows how shallow his own beliefs are and the kind of equivocation he thinks is acceptable or it shows he really doesn’t care what anyone else may believe.
In case anyone has any doubts, here’s what Mother Jones has to say about the “compromise.” http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/obama-birth-control-rule-change-why-its-not-cave
So, the solution to the mandate is . . . another mandate? Directed at insurance companies not to charge for the first one.
– time until after the election.
I want the Government and everybody else to stay out of the doctors office with me, when I go. I want my privacy back and my right to choose what I want or need from my doctor……with out all you sticking your noses into my business…and I wish people would quit turning the pulpits of their churches into soapboxes, as we are there to worship God, not to sway votes from the congregation…any church doing so should have their non profit status taken away from them….That’s why we have freedom of religion so, I can worship God the way I choose and not the way the Government or anyone else chooses for me!
You show a severe and damaging ignorance of the law. Churches are allowed to make stances on specific issues like gay marriage and abortion. It’s when they start espousing party-specific support that they break the rules.
You mean like Presidential Adviser, Valerie Jarrett from the pulpit of her church saying…
“Teachers, and firefighters, and policemen, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because Congress–well let me be specific–because the Republicans in Congress,” Jarrett told the crowd.
Yeah, like that.
Ever notice that it’s only the good churches the IRS threatens?
Salt of the earth and light of the world. The enemy isn’t interested in attacking churches that are no threat, but only those that are. Satan knows Scripture well, and he knows that lukewarm Christians make Jesus want to vomit, but those who are on fire for the Lord win converts just by living.
I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion, and would like to add that I want to keep the government’s and employers’ WALLETS out of the doctor’s office when you go there. It’s only fair.*
*and no, this “compromise” does not do that – it only shifts the cost of care so that insurance companies have to hide it in the other expenses – that they then charge to the church-employer paying for the policy. I paid out of pocket for my own darn baby-preventatives years ago, when I was a single mom with a crappy job and no welfare. I suspect others will similarly find a way.
I can’t imagine anybody falling for this nonsense. The Left believes in “compromise” about as sincerely as it believes in “civility.” By pretending that cost is the issue the White House is deliberately ignoring the real issue, which is religious freedom. The Church should not be forced to violate it’s fundamental beliefs, whether it’s “free” or not. Having the insurance companies cover the cost rather than the institutions who are purchasing the insurance does not address the critical issue.
The next outrage coming down the pike….the IPAB Independent Payment Advisory Board: appointed bureaucrats charged with deciding who will get care, how much, how often and at what cost, based on the “complete lives system” designed by Ezekiel Emanuel MD
THIS WILL BE RATIONING OF HEALTHCARE BASED ON YOUR AGE, AND THE QUALITY AND USEFULNESS OF YOU LIFE–DETERMINED BY A BOARD OF BUREAUCRATS.
THIS IS RATIONING, AND IT IS COMING IF WE DON”T REPEAL THIS EVIL BILL !
Obama’s Health Rationer-in-Chief
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
Aren’t they those Death Panels that Sarah Palin mentioned that don’t exist?
the usage of the term “core principle” and the word “obama” on the same page caused my computer to crash.
Compromise my *ss. It’s a temporizing move. After the election, he can bring the hammer down—and he will. 2008 wasn’t an election, it a was a coup. This guy is a committed marxist.
Nihilist Muslim Marxist
“It was clear from the tone of the conference call that the administration has placed its “core principle” of providing “free” contraceptive coverage above the core American principle of religious freedom.”
This is the heart of it. The government now has the right to even dictate terms to a church as to what it can and cannot believe in. Despicable. OK then, how much money does the Federal Government lose each year by staying closed for Christmas and Thanksgiving? No matter what the secularists and Obama say, Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ. So, why should the Federal Government celebrate it at all? I’m surprised the ACLU isn’t all over this, demanding that we NOT celebrate Christmas anymore as a separation of church and state. And Thanksgiving was started to give thanks to GOD for all of the food and benefits we have here in America. Well, Mr. Obama, if the government rules and there is no God, why give “thanks” at all? Why not treat it as just another work day?
This is how it ends folks. This is our Alamo. If we do not make a stand here with this mandate, there will be no going back. The Federal Government can and will micromanage every aspect of your life. And if you try and protest, they will swat you down faster than a fly. We live in bad times, my friends. These people MUST be thrown out of office this year. If not, the America you knew will be long gone by 2016. Long gone.
Those folks who cried “Antichrist!” when Obama appeared in 2008 suddenly don’t seem quite as crazy anymore.
I half-heard a news report that the “accomodation” was that the *institution* would not be responsible for contraception, the INSURANCE COMPANY would be responsible. Problem solved!
Rush is ranting about it at length even now …
When it comes to something as important as maintaining the integrity of the freeom of religion, words about a “compromise” or “accomodation” hardly seem sufficient to reflect the enormity of respect for that principle. Religion is more than something the government accomodates itself to occasionally, as if it’s doing people of faith an unexpected favor, tweeking this or that. There should be an apology for such an encroachment and a full withdrawal of the secular ideal that prompted and pressured the article in the first place!
This is no compromise; this is a farce! This is actually worse than the original idea because it’s the same thing as the original proposal, except now we’re being asked to lie about it.
Well put.
This is not to be trusted. If Obama’s reelected they will renegge on this as surely as they renegged on the promise made to Bart Stupak for his tie-breaking vote on Obamacare. Next they will force Catholic and Christian run hospitals to perform abortion on demand, then it will be partial-birth abortions. They will force churches to hire and marry gays. These people have no moral compass and they’re word means absolutely nothing. Its all a means to an end for them and I truly believe that end is marxism.
Back when passing the Obamacare bill Obama promised Bart Stupidpak a rather dimwitted democrat who would not support abortion in medical bill because of his alleged Catholic beliefs that there would be no abortion mandate. Democrat Bart took the bait and voted for Obamacare; why would anyone believe anything Obama promises unless he is a intelligence challenged democrat who does what the party orders him to do. Obama is an enemy of christians everywhere and will do anything to destroy their culture. He has surrounded himself with Catholic and Christian apostates such as Biden, Pelosi, Sibelius and varous members of the Kennedy clan and that says it all.
So it went from grabbing the Catholics hand and making them slap their own face to just simply slapping them in the face.
Yup.
The “compromise” doesn’t change anything at all.
Well, now we know for sure what the Obama administration thinks of the public…
No doubt he saw the poll that says that a slim majority want insurance to pay for contraceptives including a majority of Catholics.
Democracy is about numbers, about pleasing the majority, and you may not personally be happy with this policy but it does please the majority.
It doesn’t matter what 51% or even 99% of the population think- wrong is wrong, and the government does not have the authority to order the Church to do something that is wrong. Freedom of religion trumps majority rule.
The U.S. has a long history of dictating to hospitals, especially hospitals that receive federal money by way of Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements (i.e., the vast majority of hospitals) some baseline operational requirements. For example, if you are a hospital that has an emergency room, and hold yourself out as providing emergency services, then you must under federal law provide said services to any and all people who present themselves to the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay.
Does that seem like a heavy-handed government overreach? Maybe, but consider that in some districts, there may be only one emergency room for miles, and if that emergency room were to turn away a patient because of “freedom to contract,” then that injured person may likely die. Consider also that American case law is replete with hospitals turning away seriously injured women and minorities because the hospital decided that based on the injured persons’ skin color, gender, or last name, they would probably be unlikely to pay for said services.
Thus, the U.S. has ruled time and time again that because hospitals are a unique public good and provide life-saving services, they are a special type of business held to special standards and cannot be analogized to restaurants or other business where proprietors have more discretion regarding who they can serve, and how they can serve. This is the crux of the debate here, and this is why conservative Christians are not on the side that will ultimately prevail. This is because they are trying to label this issue as one of religious freedom and abortion, and don’t seem to appreciate that it also an issue of public health. And most often, when U.S. courts have been asked to balance the public’s right to health care against a doctor’s/hospital’s right to not provide a certain service, the public’s right always wins out.
Contraception is a public good that allows families to take responsibility for how and when they want to start a family, and ultimately this results in a better society. If a hospital collecting federal dollars wants to opt out of this public good, they would need a very compelling reason not to do so to outweigh the public benefit. And unfortunately, “God says so” is not compelling to a United States court.
“And unfortunately, “God says so” is not compelling to a United States court.”
It is, however, compelling to a good many of the American people, probably a majority (not necessarily on this issue, but in general).
I’m sorry you seem to have no *practical* respect for that. May you enjoy your victory if you get it.
“It is, however, compelling to a good many of the American people, probably a majority (not necessarily on this issue, but in general).”
While I agree that the U.S. is a nation of which the vast majority are Christian, please show me numbers that evidence that a majority of Americans are either (a) religious enough to care about this issue, or (b) seriously think that religion ought to be an accepted legal means for denying health care. I can’t imagine that this is the case, but again, please, show me the numbers and prove me wrong.
For the 47 millionth time, health insurance is not health care.
If these women want birth control, they can still get it if they’re willing to pay for it.
No one is demanding that every hospital or doctor in America stop providing these services, they’re just saying that people with religious objections shouldn’t have to pay for them.
You raise some strong arguments, which I don’t like, but do represent precedent.
Another point – oops, Rush just said it as I was typing! – is that most US Catholics do use birth control, whatever the Church says.
So I have to wonder how this plays out politically, in the voting booth.
Not the least, if and when the Republican candidate is a Mormon.
But you’re distorting what the conflict is really all about. It doesn’t matter what individual Catholics think about this tenet or that tenet. They’re not obligated to adhere to the Catholic faith. The issue is whether or not the government has the right to dictate to an organized religion what it can or can’t believe. To be more specific, the government does not have the right to force the Church to violate it’s own deeply-held beliefs by participating in the very action that is prohibited. Once that happens then the moral authority is lost. This, of course, is exactly what the Left dreams about: to undermine the moral authority of the Church so that government can tighten its control over the population. There’s a reason why totalitarian regimes always attack religious faith in general and organized religion in particular. Because it’s an obstacle to be destroyed.
Sir, you are simply not open to anything but contraception *will* be provided, come hell or high water. That is not my view.
Personally, I am not religious. A great many Americans are, as both you and I have said. I would not force them to do something like this if they did not want to. You would. You say “denying health care”. I say “perhaps folks should keep their clothes on if the other side of the coin is making someone do that which they really consider evil”–because I believe that the rights of one go only go so far, and I personally believe I have more respect for the ideals of my neighbors than you do. You sir, would enable one to do as they please because it happens to be a moral view of the situation you share. It happens to be one I share. But on the other hand I am not the man doing good by operating a hospital where otherwise none would have existed. Neither are you, most likely.
But the Catholics are.
I do not support you, or your cause. You sir, are a fascist who has an idea of what is right and will have it done no matter what. Hard words, but words I believe. And if the nation breaks up one day, it will be because of men like you, who simply will have their wills done and will have it called the highest good.
Have a nice day.
Like just every lib I read anymore, you’ve got the tail wagging the dog. What part of “We, the people of the United States” do you not understand about who was intended to ultimately decide?
And it is long overdue that our feckless Congress and thugs in black robes ruling by judicial fiat get a reminder of that. The executive rule against the wishes of the majority, this tyranny by minority, has gone on long enough and it is time to make a stand.
I, for one, have had a gutful of a bunch of unelected ingrates telling me how they are going to decide what is and what isn’t. And I’ll bet I’m not alone in that belief.
You make a good argument for getting government out of healthcare not increasing its role. At some point the majority will figure out that the left is never satisfied and never will be. I predict another constitutional crisis in the not too distant future, one that results in much smaller government and new measures to limit the kind of fiscal and regulatory madness that the left has foisted on the public. It cannot happen too soon as far as I am concerned.
You’d do well to consider all that can be encompassed by “the public good”.
Should the government be able to take your property and turn it over to another individual who will pay higher taxes? Yes, it’s in the public good to maximize tax revenues.
Should the government euthanize the terminally ill rather than spending precious Medicare resources? Yes, it’s in the public good to prioritize Medicare spending.
Should the government euthanize the elderly after their prime tax-paying years have passed. Yes, it’s in the public good to avoid paying Social Security benefits and life is a terminal condition.
Should the government be able to take your children if you fail to follow Federal dietary guidelines? Yes, it’s in the public good to combat teenage obesity.
Should restaurants be required to only serve overweight customers salads? Yes, it’s in the public good to combat the diabetes epidemic.
Should the government be able to require you to buy a Chevy Volt? Yes, the government is heavily invested in GM and it’s in the public good to maximize the return on that investment.
Should the government be able to limit the amount of electricity that you can buy? Yes, it’s in the public good to mitigate the consequences of global warming.
I could type all day and still not have a complete list of all the disastrous consequences of blindly bowing to “the public good”. But I guess giving up your freedom, property and life is a small price to pay for a “right” that somehow requires my money.
Actually, “God says so” is compelling in a US Court. See, for example, the decisions about Conscientious Objector status.
I’m not a conservative Christian. I’m a pro-choice libertarian Wiccan and firmly opposed to this mandate. Your attempt to analogize it to emergency medical care is specious and your little side trip into raaaaacism is worthy of nothing but contempt.
Abortion is elective surgery. That’s why it’s called pro-CHOICE. It is not remotely close to, say, treating the victim of a heart attack or car accident. Abortifacients and contraceptives are likewise optional drugs. They are not cancer treatment, dialysis, immunosuppressants for transplants, etc. They’re not even pain meds for migraines. They are O-P-T-I-O-N-A-L.
“Contraception is a public good…”-Larry M.
You don’t know what a public good is. Contraception isn’t one. But if you’re willing to stipulate (here, in public) that your wife is, I can’t stop you.
You’re argument is not speaking to the question. The relationship in question is between employer and employee and what benefits the employer must provide. It has nothing to do with the relationship between emergency room patient and emergency room doctor.
This is clearly an eminent domain issue for the insurance companies. They may not choose to fight it, because the Obama administration has made it clear it plays with brass knuckles–but it is an eminent domain action nonetheless. Obama might as well start quartering troops in private houses at this rate.
We are at a tipping point as far as the rule of law goes. If Catholics accept this compromise–making someone else pay the price for their beliefs because a Leviathan government is intent on a public policy choice (especially as they have assisted that Leviathan to gain power)–then I hope they understand that though I am but one man, I will not be coming to their aid in the future if a similar event happens. I doubt I will be alone, though in what numbers I cannot say.
Precisely.
I forced myself to watch the press conference. One word: impudent.
And in bad faith: he never mentions abortion.
Not even their dupes are fooled by this one.
Planned Parenthood needs to be completely defunded first thing next January to send a message we have come to play hardball and if they don’t like it, they can pack their bags and leave for Dhimmihood. Hollywood can finance them.
I will consider the Republican President a failure if I don’t read and hear daily wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Left wing of the Dimocratic party for the next four years. If it’s constitutionally legal, I want every thing these scum bags hold dear under attack with reckless abandon. I want to push Cecile Richards and Kathleen Sebelius to the brink of nervous breakdown. I want to hear messages of “I’m leaving” and “I can’t take it anymore” from every Obama lackey who foisted this flim flam on us.
Not sure how old you are, or how it is that you seem to have endless time to post violent rants on the internet, but let me tell you a little bit about me, just to give you a sense of who you are up against. I wake up at 5:30 every morning and do at least an hour of exercise. After that, I get on the train and go to work clerking for a judge at a federal court in a large city. At 5 pm, I go to my second job helping tech companies write contracts. I am young, dedicated, hardworking, ambitious and progressive. I work hard to put food on the table for my family and have never taken a handout. I am actively engaged in my state’s local politics. I vote in every election. I canvass and make phone calls for Democratic and Green party candidates. I am constantly networking with my state’s congressmen and senators. I am always organizing. Next year I am going to graduate from a top 50 law school and you had better believe I will hit the ground running. Long story short, I make Cecile Richards and Kathleen Sebelius look like amateur hour. Hell, I make Obama look like Reagan. And there are thousands more just like me on my speed dial – lawyers, congressional paiges, activists, journalists, organizers, and yes, even entrepreneurs and businesspeople.
Again, I don’t know how old you are, but I’m sure I’m a lot younger than you, and I’m just getting started. And I promise you what you will never hear from me is any “wailing and gnashing of teeth.” So please, by all means, spend the remaining years of your life trying to destroy the Sebeliuses and Richards of the world. I’ll be glad to take their place. And please go ahead and try to attack Planned Parenthood or the unions out of some adolescent rage because your team is losing. It doesn’t matter. I’ll be busting my behind for PP, MoveOn, Change.org, labor unions and a bunch of other organizations long after you’ve gone to that big Country Buffet in the sky.
So. You’re young. Cool.
I’m, like, all impressed and stuff.
Do you not wish for freedom? Do you not believe in freedom of religion? Or – let me guess – you don’t believe in freedom at all?
You will work your tail off to deny us our guaranteed freedoms. Got it.
Plus . . . you’re young. Cool.
“Can’t sing, but I’m young”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIGGARHGO3g
Noah, (or can I refer to you as Internet Tough Guy?)
Seems like you need to double up that effort, you, and “the thousands” in our Contacts, just didn’t get it done in ’10. Did you see the results? There’s more of that coming. So, better work out for 2 hours and get a third job. Maybe that will help.
Let me tell you about myself while I’m here. 45 and five kids. Guess I’m batting above average cause it seems they are all following their parent’s conservative values (you do know kids are 90% likely to follow their parent’s values). Conservatives don’t abort our kids and we have a tons of them. Tough for you.
The kids you ask? One’s in law school, one’s an engineer and the rest are still in primary school. All home-schooled, maybe a seminarian and a service cadet member in there (OCS, of course), I suppose. I hoping we get a farmer as well.
Sincerely,
Lexy Rexy (or you can call me The Conservative Internet Tough Guy)
My young friend, do you know who you remind me of when I read this?
St Paul.
He was a young zealot too. Until One greater than him helped him see his error.
You will ALWAYS be in my prayers.
Well Noah Z., I’m just terrified of your coolness.
I like you, man. Give me some of the liberal fire in the belly, and it will expedite the flight.
You hitting the ground running at 100mph, headed to the depths of
hellMoveOn? I’m going to give you assistance getting there, a little push or a major kick in the flaming tush to head you on way.Noah- LOL -love the post-reminded me of my youth. Aren’t hormones great?
Be sure of one thing Noah, your views will change, hopefully your drive to do good won’t.
Wel sot of impressive, I myself do things that can get yourself killed almost on an hourly basis for a living and the things that you stand for like move on and such I find disgusting and vile!
Your credentials I think are bogus and you are a horse’s ass without a tail to cover it nor could you pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were inside the boot.
1.5 billion Catholics in this world should start a superpac strictly for the defeat of obama and all democrats. Imagine it funded with a $1.00 a month contribution.
Likewise the Church needs to excommunicate the fake Catholics like Biden, Kerry, peloser.
Well, maybe don’t excommunicate Kerry just yet. I saw that he tweeted that he disagreed with the policy yesterday. Not sure if he agrees with this farce today.
I believe that there are now 6 Democatic senators who have publicly stated they do not support the previous mandate. We’ll have to follow the news cycle to see if these 6 senators will use today’s news as a fig leaf, albeit a small leaf.
Kind of surprised Obama made this announcement today. I’d have guessed he’d wait until Feb 22. Make it part of his traditional Ash Wednesday proclamation.
Here’s the complete text from Ash Wednesday 2011:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/09/statement-president-ash-wednesday
“Michelle and I join with millions of Christians here and across the world to mark Ash Wednesday. As we observe the season of Lent, we receive with thanksgiving this opportunity for grace and repentance, recommit ourselves to our faith, and remember our obligations to one another.”
I have been following this quite closely as both a patriot and a Roman Catholic.
Can someone provide an easy explanation of the before and after compromise? I honestly don’t see the difference. but, admit to being a bit dim.
Not even sure this provides a fig leaf to my small c brothers and sisters…
Before:
the Catholic institutions will pay for abortions
After:
the Catholic institutions will pay insurers who will pay for abortions
That’s how a nihilist totalitarian understands morality.
Thanks. I see.
That is a rather small fig leaf then. Imperceptible even.
“Core principle”
Oh, yeah. As if.
I just had an epiphany while reading this article!
What Obama is indirectly saying is this: If you are a Muslim, we (the USA) will bend over backwards, ignore national security protocol, shut down our space exploration on the premise of Muslim outreach, and allow for your “religious beliefs” to turn certain cities into no-man lands. (TSA exemptions, anyone?)
If you are anything but a Muslim, I am sorry. We (the President’s USA) believe that the rest of you will simply become second class. Your religious freedoms are not nearly as important as those of the Allah faith, so if we find it convenient we will shovel things you hate down your throat until you gag and die.
Obama: “Today we’ll just start calling this pig a dog and put a collar on it. That clearly redefines this creature as a canine and it will be treated as such.”
Has there ever been anything so cynical or outrageous or, well, insulting, as this? Expecting that the groups opposed to his mandate for religious reasons will take the Pontius Pilate approach to washing away the sin certainly exposes a window to Obama’s true nature.
Isn’t this one of the ways obama’s health care is going to cut the costs by aborting baby’s and having death panels. Oh, you just wait until he gets in next time! He will have no constraints. Didn’t that tiny, obnoxious Reiiiiiich say that what he needs next time is a 60 majority senate so he can really change the supreme court. So you who think Romney and obama are the same, and you intend to stay home, you had better think again….. With the supreme court changed just like ginsburg we may never recover.
An adroit Obama pivot; he does it well. Rage on.
When I heard the admin was going to change its stance on this issue, the first thing that popped in to my head was “THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN AN ELECTION PLOY”. This shows the idiocy of this admin. If they were smart, they would have stirred up the pot, then completely reversed the decision. Afterwards, they would have made a big deal about “listening” to constituents, and “See, I’m not an idealogue. I listened to you and gave you what you want.”
Please don’t take my political strategery advice as support for BHO. I just wanted to point out that he does in fact have an agenda that supercedes all reason.
He IS listening to the polls, see my link in a comment below.
The polls are running against PJMedia’s position even among Catholics
Josh Scholar you are simply using a logical fallacy know as “Argumentum ad populum” ie “Many people believe this so it must be true.”
O just invented the free lunch. We should all rejoice and wait patiently for free dessert.
The saddest part is that he believes enough will be fooled by this.
Would the goal of many here be that any woman who works for a Catholic instituiton, should NEVER be able to get healthcare covering contraceptives from anyone?
And of course none of us believe in the freedom of religion when it comes to certain things, Muslims and other groups following some of their traditional and sexist stuff. Yes, the government is going to intervene to protect women’s rights, both subtly and blatantly, if necessary. If a religion states that it is ok to beat one’s wife, should that church be exempted from having to pay costs that include services for such things as battered women?
Most simply put, there is not an absolute freedom of religion, when certain religious practices cause clear danger. I am not saying I know where the clear, bright dividing line is, but then, neither does anyone here.
“Would the goal of many here be that any woman who works for a Catholic instituiton, should NEVER be able to get healthcare covering contraceptives from anyone?”
Well, of course, Dwight, that is what this is all about. Objecting to being forced to have to pay for have to pay for birth control, sterilization and abortion when it’s against your religion is the EXACT SAME THING as wanting to make sure that “any woman who works for a Catholic institution” (why didn’t you just say “any woman”?) can NEVER EVER get insurance covering contraceptives from anyone?
Why yes, that follows. /s
“And of course none of us believe in the freedom of religion when it comes to certain things, Muslims and other groups following some of their traditional and sexist stuff. Yes, the government is going to intervene to protect women’s rights, both subtly and blatantly, if necessary. If a religion states that it is ok to beat one’s wife, should that church be exempted from having to pay costs that include services for such things as battered women?”
Why yes, that’s the same thing, too! The Catholic Church not wanting to subsidize birth control, abortions, and sterilization that are against their beliefs is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as the government prosecuting honor killings! /s
“Most simply put, there is not an absolute freedom of religion, when certain religious practices cause clear danger. I am not saying I know where the clear, bright dividing line is, but then, neither does anyone here.”
You sure don’t know. In fact, you can’t tell the difference between murdering people and wanting not to pay for their murder.
The women still have the right to purchase birth control, just not at the expense of her employer if they choose not to do so. The government does not have the authority to make anyone purchase her birth control for her. This line of reasoning extends to any health insurance programs. The government should not force any company to purchase health insurance.
It’s curious. Planned Parenthood gets tax subsidies to provide charitable birth control indirectly paid for by everyone, including people with violated religious convictions against providing such contraceptives. Religious charities get similar government tax subsidies to provide charitable services that exclude birth control but paid for by people without those religious convictions against contraception. I suppose if we’re going to be purists, there should be no tax exemptions for doing charitable good works. Of course, those same religious institutions were all on board for the Obama care ride in favor of the individual mandate, and yet now those religious charities cry foul for Obama playing tit for tat after those religious institutions bellied up to the bar for Obama care state pork barrel? Curious, but it reminds of the john’s complaint about catching and STD because he was duped by the brothel’s claims of only providing clean virgins. Then there is this new curious state practice of defining away what a religious institution is under Tribunal Sebelius. Basically, if your not an institution primarily involved in inculcating religious values–a seminary or church–you don’t qualify for a religious exemption from meeting the secular requirements of the state for providing charitable contraceptives. In other words, in the era of the individual mandate no one is entitled to a religious conscience exemption from performing duties that violate your religious convictions, unless a priest or seminary student. Ah, now if only this definitional procedure had applied to conscience exemptions from the military draft during the Vietnam War, conscience exemptions so studiously enjoyed by some of the same people who clamored for Obama care.
Let me explain to all who do not understand why this is not acceptable. If I am asked to do something sinful, not only would it be a sin to do it, but it would be no less a sin if I refused but directed the solicitor to someone who doesn’t have such reservations. If I were a doctor, not only would I be forbidden to perform an abortion, but I would also be forbidden to refer a patient for an abortion even if the patient requests it against my council. Likewise a pharmacist must not only refuse to dispense forbidden drugs (abortifacients, contraceptives, poisons to be used for suicide, etc.), but is also forbidden from referring the buyer to someone who will dispense them.
Furthermore, this should not surprising. We would not hold guiltless a gun dealer who sold a gun knowing the buyer intended to commit a crime with it, nor would we hold him guiltless if he refused to sell the gun himself but referred the criminal to a less scrupulous dealer. In both cases, he would be an accessory prior to the fact, because he was willfully complicit in the procurement of elements essential to committing the crime. Now, if the criminal remained silent about his intentions or even lied to the gun dealer, the gun dealer would not be liable, because the gun he sells has lawful uses that the dealer may presume the buyer intends to use it for in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
However, such presumption is not given to those who sell items for which no lawful use exists, such as a piece of software whose only function is to hack into computers and steal or destroy information or property. This is how we view IUDs- an Intrauterine Device has no legitimate function; it’s entire purpose is to commit murder, and it cannot be used for anything else. It’s sole function is to prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb, thereby killing the child.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-white-house-sees-political-opportunity-in-the-contraception-battle/2012/02/07/gIQAZ9hryQ_blog.html
Oh wow the other number understated the split here:
Catholics are MORE STRONGLY IN FAVOR of insurance paying for contraception than every other group.
Perhaps they’re more likely to work for Catholic employers and they’re sick of not being covered.
The split is 58% in favor of employers paying vs. 37% against.
Only non-religious people are more strongly in favor of the president’s policy.
Careful people, you’re fighting for the honor of a woman who doesn’t want your protection!
Let’s see, where do you draw the line? Telling people to provide/purchase an item, telling a church what you can/cannot do. Pretty soon, the government will tell you where you can or can’t live –oops imminent domain. All’s fine and dandy while it happens to OTHER people, then nothing will be in the way when the target’s on you.
I recall many a poll in late Oct. 2010 that told us the Dimocrats would be retaining the house. In fact, I’m old enough to remember Jimmy Carter leading Ronald Reagan and Mandatory Mike Dukakis beating George Bush.
By all means, carry forth Scholar.
I refer to him as “Josh.”
Unfortunately his posts lack that certain zing that would make them effective satire.
The only core principle DaOne, Billery, the Bull Dike, and Holder have is Marxism. A Lot like BLT Marxism.
This is but one part of the full court press to weaken America, and bring the United States in line with the global government. Gun walking, growing the government during a depression, and placing millions of illegal aliens on the sugar tit are a few more examples.
Hey POTUS, you did not uphold the Constitution you swore to. That is a serious crime.
Poor Conservatives – they are so easily led by the nose and can get so easily riled up boy their politicians and fox news and hate radio. Of course they are to freaking stupid to actually understand the issue that is in front of them as most have about as much intellectual curiosity and depth of understanding many issues as a cookie sheet is deep.
So here’s a little education for conservative dummies and jesus freaks.
1st – In 2000 women won the right not to be discriminated in health insurance policies that covered prescriptions by saying it was a women’s health issue. So IF an employer wanted to cover prescriptions in the policy they were offering then birth control MUST be covered as well just like any other prescription drug.
2nd – In 2002 NY implemented this policy with exemptions for Churches, schools, convents etc but not for Hospitals and Colleges. A republican governor signed it into law- Gov. Pataki. The Church went to court and lost, then lost again in higher NY courts, then lost again in Fed Appeals court, and then the Supreme court said don’t want to hear it. Now any Catholic Hospital of College could get around this law by just offering a health insurance policy that did NOT cover prescriptions but then they and everyone else would pick off their good employees because that’s the marketplace and competition.
3rd – 28 other states also implemented this because they also had large religious hospitals and colleges with 8 not even giving a religious exemption. All this happened before Obama became a Senator so good luck trying to blame him for this law which many Republicans voted for before they were taken over by the religious jesus freaks
4th – the religious jesus freaks said nothing while this was an issue in the early 2000’s as shrub their incompetent hero was POTUS.
5th – The affordable care act was passed with the support of the Catholic Bishops and now Obama must implement this policy on Federal level.
6th – Now I don’t know if he did this deliberately but it was a masterstroke of genius to get all the jesus freaks in a buzz as it now highlights Obama willing to compromise and change and if needed even change some more while the opposition candidates look foolish by comparison – especially Santorum, Newt, and Romney.
7th – the super conservative Romney in 2005 signed a law that forced Catholic Hospitals to give the morning after pill to rape victims who come in and say they were raped. That went over big with Catholics in MA. Yet now he’s screaming at Obama – please make him the nominee.
8th – Santorum – now is there any other candidate running that is carrier than Santorum who appears a theocracy would be just fine with him – I’d say please voted for him but even I know conservatives aren’t that stupid.
9th Newt – heck yes he’s the one we all fear as his three wives will be no problem and also his other affairs in which he would only engage in oral sex because he said he was married. LOL Plus moon colonies and all his crazy talk would just be too much for Obama to overcome.
Life is good!
“…super conservative Romney…”
Ha ha.
Try again.
Nothing you have written has anything to do with DaOne mandating the American public pay for Moloch worship. If you want to worship a false god by all means do so, just don’t expect Americans to pay for your Temple service. You pay for it.
Flaming Liberal – your points are opinions disguised, by the format of a list and dates, as facts. But they are not facts.
1. You make an illogical statement (petitio principii or begging the question) by claiming that denying birth control in an insurance package is an act of discrimination against women, and by suggesting that birth control is directly related to women’s health. False.
2. You make yet another false assertion by claiming that IF an employer’s insurance package did not offer birth control, THEN, the employee would go to another employer. [ad ignoratiam and etc]. You ignore that nothing is free, and an insurance package that included such prescriptions would be higher than one that did not – and, there are many reasons for choosing a job and the insurance is only one.
3. insufficient evidence.
4. Ad hominem (Jesus freaks) and therefore, does not merit the definition of a rational argument.
5. vague and insufficient evidence
6.7,8,9. Your personal views and lacks empirical and logical content.
Now, what you choose – and I am using that word with intent – to ignore is that this bill of Obama’s has less to do with women, and more to do with a centralist agenda of power-over-individuals and individual institutions.
No-one can say that birth control is, reasonably, related to the health of women, for one would have to prove that, in the norm, pregnancy is an unhealthy state and undesirable in a population. Therefore their use is a free choice by a supposedly free individual and has nothing to do with ‘women’s health’ or ‘rights’.
No-one can say that birth control is ‘free’ – although, we have just heard Obama say just that. Economically that is a falsehood. Does this mean that the manufacturers of these prescriptions could obtain the chemicals for free, that the machines used in their manufacture cost nothing to make; that the workers in the factory offered their work for free, that the delivery trucks and workers were unpaid, that the gas in those trucks cost nothing….?
Therefore, the cost is carried by someone/some institution. The cost can be paid by the individual who chooses to use this. It can be paid by the institution where the individual works. It can be paid by the insurance that is bought by the institution/individual. So? Who pays?
The religious institutions declare that such a prescription violates their religious axioms. The First Amendment gives them the right to such axioms. Obama ignores these rights.
You ignore that whether the insurance company pays or the individual pays directly – it is not free. A policy without such coverage is cheaper than one that covers them. Obama’s declaration that the religious institution’s insurance, not the institution, will cover the costs – is a cynical and insulting action. After all, the religious institution’s insurance is paid for by its employees – which means that its employees are all, like it or not, contributing to this cost.
This violates the First Amendment’s freedom of religion because it sets up a situation where the institution, via its employees, is still supporting this action. It’s a one-step removal causality where the first cause is linked to an action by a second intermediary. That’s a cynical act by Obama.
The real concern is Obama’s continual intrusion of centralist authoritarian decision-making over all institutions and systems in the US and an increasing denial of individual freedom. That’s the real concern and you and others ignore this at your peril.
But apparently it is cheaper for insurance companies to pay for contraceptives than for childbirth. It may be a half-true, as it isn’t necessarily an either-or situation, but enough of a truth so that Obama can squeeze the costs of the “free coverage” out of the insurance companies.
I am ready to call bs on some of the howling about infringement on religious freedom from the usual howlers. But now they are all worked up…and have no place to go. It is doubly ironic, since so few Catholics follow the ban on birth control. Ah, but it is the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Hell, my parents had a half-baked religious belief for the first three years of my life that vaccinations were a bad thing, and unnecessary, given God’s will and all that. Fortunately, they smartened up, before thay had to be told by Big Brother that they had to do it. Wait until the Sharia folks start waving around their religious freedom to do x, y, and not do z and compel their womenfolk to do likewise. Let’s see how loud you howl then, when Big Brother comes after them.
I disagree with your comments. There is no logical or empirical connection between the costs of contraceptives versus the costs of having and raising a child. It’s a logical fallacy to even try to compare the two – and it isn’t even ‘enough of a truth’ to be mentioned in the same breath.
Equally, your other comparison between vaccination vs the disease is an invalid comparison. That’s because bearing and raising a child is not a disease, and contraceptives can’t be compared to a vaccination. Furthermore, your parent’s beliefs were not axioms of the church but were personal.
As for your ‘bs’ comment on infringement of religious axioms – your comment is empty and thus, as such, is an example of ‘bs’ in itself. The fact remains, and you are ignoring this, that religious freedom is a First Amendment right and for a government to intrude on this, and override one of its axioms, namely the sanctity of life, is a violation of that fundamental right.
The fact that many Catholics practise birth control is their individual freedom – and free will or choice is basic to the Church’s teachings. What you are ignoring is Obama’s insistence that the CHURCH provide this birth control – and this violates the religious axioms of the Church.
Sharia law is not a religious axiom but a cultural axiom and can’t be compared. The references to laws in the Qu’ran are general and abstract, and most of the specific references to behavior are found in the secondary (not from god) sources and thus, are varied and culture-bound.
WHY does one use birth control? Foolish me, I thought it was to avoid having a child, which obviously comes with many costs for both the birth and the raising.
And your “logic” for distinguishing between the Catholic condemnation of birth control and Sharia law is tortured, especially since the Catholic Church sees itself as having a role equal to Holy Scripture in determining its “axioms.” Is there a proscription against birth control in the Bible? A few folks have tried to use the Onan example, but any serious reader knows that dog won’t hunt. Do fundamentalist protestants who pore over the scriptures (supposedly) more than anyone have a problem with birth control?
If you want to bring Holy Scripture into it, there are all sorts of Levitical “laws” that are regularly violated by modern society and the commensurate government responses. If I am a “Christian,” how many people do I need in my Church of not putting the milk and the meat on the same plate, and banishing the woman when she gets her period, not to mention generally keeping her in line to get all sorts of exemptions from the guvment?
The problem with your analysis, Dwight, is that to conclude that IF something costs money (for both the birth and the raising) THEN, that action is socially undesirable is, frankly, an empty and even unethical argument.
After all, a society without reproductive actions rapidly ceases to exist. Therefore a society that discourages a new generation…..
And, research and development costs money – is it therefore undesirable?
New technology costs money – is it therefore undesirable?
The reason that the Christian Church sees itself as having a vital interpretive role in Christian axioms is because the scriptures, unlike the Qu’ran are NOT defined as the ‘inviolate word of God’ but are understood as interpretations of Christian teaching.
And you continue to miss the point: a central authority, the Obama govt, is taking upon itself to dictate rules of behavior to a non-governmental institution – and a religious one at that, in violation of the First Amendment.
Feeding a human being costs money – should we therefore encourage people not to eat?
When you write: “The reason that the Christian Church sees itself as having a vital interpretive role in Christian axioms is because the scriptures, unlike the Qu’ran are NOT defined as the ‘inviolate word of God’ but are understood as interpretations of Christian teaching.” I hope you know that a number of your Protestant brethren here at PJM would disagree vehemently. Ironically, the Founding Fathers were strong in their fears of Catholics. The Suffolk Resolves, which Paul Revere took down to the Continental Congress affirmed Protestantism as one of the founding principles. Granted that no such wording made it into the sublime document, but if Newt G were so inclined, he could write a book on how many of the Founders feared Catholicism.
Given your responses, it is beginning to sound as if you think that NO health plan should cover contraceptives. But you have already made the point that it is a CHOICE. Because one COULD get contraceptives in a health plan from Catholic charities or anyone else, does not mean that anyone HAS to use them. They have the OPTION, that’s all.
You can’t win this on the cost piece or the scriptural piece, or even the Founders’ piece, but the bottom line is that Obama has taken the necessary (apparently) pivot and it is now virtually a moot point.
Your view, Dwight, that ‘a number of your Protestant brethen’ would disagree with my comment that the Christian scriptures are NOT understood as the direct word of god – is logically irrelevant.
First – what do you mean by ‘my Protestant brethren’? You have no idea of my religion and to claim such – is empty. Second, because these people make a claim does not make it factually correct. The FACT is, that the bible is not understood as the direct word of god.
Equally, your statement that the Founding Fathers were afraid of Catholics is also irrelevant to this argument. Again, so what?
As for whether a health care plan should include contraceptives, that has to be left up to the insurance company, which ought to offer several optional packages. Remember, nothing is free. Whether you pay for via your insurance costs or personally – you pay for it.
After all, insurance is meant to be a collective approach to risk; that is, you put funds into it, as a collective, to cover not everyday normative needs but to cover risk needs. If you use the insurance to cover ALL needs, then, it becomes fiscally untenable, as the funds for regular needs will outweigh risk needs – and people will find, as they do in Canada, that they cannot get rapid and full treatment. [This is why so many Canadians who can, go and get private treatment in the US].
I therefore strongly disagree with your conclusion that Obama has taken the ‘necessary’ pivot. You continue to ignore the real meaning of his action – which is to assert an authoritarian centralist domination over private institutions and to violate the First Amendment. You seem to consider such actions…trivial. If we are to bring the Founders into the discussion, I doubt if they would agree with you.
You are asserting logic, so I must point out that you could have Protestant brethren here at the PJM Church, no matter what your persuasion.
Paraphrasing some Supreme Court Justice, the Holy Scriptures are what the Church SAYS they are, and I suppose that you have a point there, since many decisions were made about what they were and what they were not before there was such a thing as Protestants.
To imagine the Founders contemplating the appropriateness of this particular interaction between the bureacracy of the guvment and the bureaucracy of the Papists, does boggle the mind, I will grant you that.;-)
Apparently you can’t grasp the difference between action and inaction or between compulsion and prohibition. There is a world of difference between attempting to force a Christian to worship the leader and prohibiting a Muslim from forcibly reconverting someone back to Islam- the latter respects the rights of the individual while the former tramples them underfoot.
“Forcing a Christian to worship the leader” What? Having one’s coverage include contraceptives is worshipping the leader? That’s…er…creative.
I didn’t say it was the same thing; rather, I was citing things that have actually happened in other parts of the world. Stripping ecclesiastical courts of the power to impose criminal penalties is fine, but coercing them to do that which their faith forbids or prohibiting people from performing their religious duties is anathema to the Constitution.
Violent threats?
Is that what passes for “old” men with “adolescent” fantasies these days in libbie land? Now, exactly where have I posted these numerous violent threats again?
I can see why you’re an Obama rube. Well, here’s your first lesson in life, Noah Z. Consider this one for free. Early onset of delusions of grandeur is inherently dangerous.
But you’re my favorite kind of prog to push the big red buttons. Young, dumb and naive. A zealot.
Give me about ten minutes with you, and I’ll have you speaking in tongues. But I was most impressed with your sterling resume – the Top 50.
Especially the one hour workout. What too? A Jane Fonda tape?
What do we need Congress for? Last I knew Congress passed the “healthcare” legislation, by what authority does Obama change it? Oh, I forgot, King Barry reigns.
President Obama is an idiot wind and a moral midget (no offense to little people).
The Insurance Companies will simply add the cost of supplying these “FREE” contraception services to their premiums . So everyone Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Mormon etc etc will ALL pay anyway. This is no ‘compromise’ its just another Left Wing moonbat SCAM.
obama believes in immaculate contraception!
Yay for the catholic church – fighting once again to force its religious view on its employees, whether they be catholic, calathumpian or atheist, whether they have any religious function whatsoever and whether or not those religious views happen to be in line with the legal obligations that the rest of the country faces.
I think some folks need to have a think about what the words “establishment of religion” actually mean. A church is a church. A hospital isn’t a church, it’s a hospital. A school isn’t a church either, it’s a school (with the possibly exception of a seminary).
And the “free expression thereof” doesn’t mean telling other people what they can or can’t do. I’m all for catholic employers refusing to know anything about family planning – it’s less appropriate for them to be excluding their employees from insurance plans that cover it. If they don’t like employing people under the same rules that everyone else has to follow, then that’s fine – just don’t employ people.
If you object to an authority denying ‘free expression’ and telling others what they can and cannot do, then it is puzzling why you aren’t objecting to the government doing just that. Remember, a government doesn’t get its laws from ‘god’ but from The People. Therefore, a government has no right to impose laws on The People if those same people reject them. Obama’s Health Care is not supported by the majority of the population.
As for your equally illogical argument, that an employer HAS to provide an insurance policy that covers birth control – no, it doesn’t. It can provide a policy that doesn’t cover it; this policy will be less costly and the individual who wants such prescriptions can pay for it by themselves. There is no need to REQUIRE the whole employment community, even those who don’t use birth control, to pay into the plan so that you can have such prescriptions.
If you object to an authority denying ‘free expression’ and telling others what they can and cannot do, then it is puzzling why you aren’t objecting to the government doing just that.
That’s a red herring. The government DOES tell people what they can or can’t do, and I doubt if anyone here would seriously suggest that it shouldn’t. Otherwise we can put this whole roe-v-wade thing to bed right now because, without a government telling her that she can’t, there’s nothing to stop a woman from having an abortion any time she wants. So let’s please stick to the case at hand and try to keep the unicorns to a minimum.
My point is that the objection to this law is based on two clauses in the first amendment. Congress making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” and “the free expression thereof [religion]“. I fail to see how requiring a hospital to stick to the same employer regulations as everybody else fails either of those test. A hospital is not an establishment of religion – it’s a hospital. And while catholics might have a doctrine that prevents them from using contraception, I don’t recall any encyclicals that talk about imposing that view on employees. It’s B.S., in other words.
Like I said – if an organisation doesn’t want the follow the law in relation to employing people, they’re more than welcome to refrain from employing people.
As for the issue of “forcing” people to pay for things they don’t like, I haven’t yet heard anybody suggest the obvious – that a church-run organisation simply offer two schemes. One includes family planning, the other doesn’t. Argument over, problem solved, everyone please grow up and get back on with the job.
Remember, a government doesn’t get its laws from ‘god’ but from The People. Therefore, a government has no right to impose laws on The People if those same people reject them. Obama’s Health Care is not supported by the majority of the population.
As for your equally illogical argument, that an employer HAS to provide an insurance policy that covers birth control – no, it doesn’t. It can provide a policy that doesn’t cover it; this policy will be less costly and the individual who wants such prescriptions can pay for it by themselves. There is no need to REQUIRE the whole employment community, even those who don’t use birth control, to pay into the plan so that you can have such prescriptions.
No, you are quite incorrect. A government is not totalitarian and self-appointed; it is elected to represent the WILL of the people. Therefore, if it develops laws that are rejected by the majority of the people and/or that violate the Constitution, that govt is no longer legitimate.
Second, an institution is not an isolate entity but is a corporation, i.e., it operates within its own set of rules and mandate. A Catholic hospital operates its medical services within its religious rules – and it happens to be the LAW in this nation that the govt may not intrude on the rules of a religion. So, your attempt to divorce the hospital from the religious order that runs it is invalid.
A religious institution cannot be forced by the govt to violate its religious axioms. That’s the law in this nation – and Obama is attempting to do just that; he is attempting to insert the State over God within a religion.
No, a church-run organization cannot offer ‘two schemes’ – one that offers contraception and one that doesn’t. It cannot offer the former – and what you are ignoring is that Obama is INSISTING that the church organization offer only the one insurance – WITH contraception.
Blatant violation of free exercise clause. Blatantly illegal.
THE CATHOLIC PROBLEM
President Obama wants Catholics to become involved in a conspiracy to commit murder at a rate the Nazis slaughtered the Jews (which as you know used to be “The Jewish Problem”) But today the murder victim is the unborn. The President said he hoped this wouldn’t be used as a wedge issue.
Further, the anointed one says if the Catholic church doesn’t go along with it, he’ll institute fines on everything Catholic from hospitals to charities to churches; and if they disobey, he’ll drive them and their arcane beliefs out of existence.
Women’s reproductive rights, the President said, always outweigh issues of freedom of religion. While the Constitution didn’t say this in so many words, it’s a living breathing document, much like an unborn child, and the Constitution must change with the times, just as the unborn a million times a year must be sacrificed when a woman’s convenience is at stake. Which not only saves time, but saves money.
Obama further went on to say, “this country needs a new set of rules to protect women’s rights and anyone who doesn’t abide by them is not trying to find common ground or compromise; really is no American, much like, and I’ve said this before many times, Fox News is no news outlet. I heard arguments that there are good compromises and bad compromises. I don’t go along with that thinking. I think all compromises are good ones, just as long as they make sense to the average American (and to me).
“I told the Catholics that I would demand their insurance companies pay for the abortion pill and contraceptives free of change, which they’ll do or be fined, appropriately. Although the Catholic institutions pay for this insurance, it means they’ll be paying for abortions in a more indirect way, which is designed to eliminate any issues of conscience; the result of 500 year old teachings. Could it be it’s time that church teachings caught up with the times?
“I promised fundamental transformation if elected, and I’m electing to carry out that promise. Anyone who disagrees with me and chooses not to be part of the growing, prosperous future of the United States, does so at their own peril. As they say, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Incidentally, Obama made this speech in the White House yesterday and ended with the words of another great American.
“The ‘morality of compromise’ sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don’t compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised.” Andrew Carnegie
“Women’s reproductive rights, the President said, always outweigh issues of freedom of religion. While the Constitution didn’t say this in so many words, it’s a living breathing document, much like an unborn child, and the Constitution must change with the times, just as the unborn a million times a year must be sacrificed when a woman’s convenience is at stake. Which not only saves time, but saves money.”
Now there’s a line for the ages. Looking in the Constitution for the rights of women, per se, would be pretty much a dead-end proposition, somewhere close to the rights of slaves. But it is a task that a man pretending to be a woman might be best at. Hmmmm.
But I think that he/she has successfully linked Obama and reproductive rights with the Nazis, so we can’t say that he/she hasn’t accomplished anything.
But maybe this isn’t the real Rachel Peepers, because he/she said he/she was leaving and never coming back….quite a few times, in fact.
This “accommodation” is a farce, since the insurance companies will just pass along the cost of the “free” contraceptive coverage to the Catholic institutions buried in the normal rate increases generated by everything else in Obamacare. The fundamental underlying problem goes beyond this particular provision of Obamacare. The real issue is the 70 year old Supreme Court decisions which vastly expanded the original scope of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. We will not be able to stop and roll back Obamacare or the numerous other ever-increasing expansions of the federal leviathan until we have restored the original meaning of the interstate commerce clause. Given how entrenched those old decisions are, we can only accomplish this by amending the Constitution to reverse these Supreme Court misinterpretations of the Constitution’s original meaning and structure. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
i have a solution for this whole mess.
the Catholic Church and the Baptists just needs to make a sizeable donation to the obammy re-election campaign. then they can be granted an exemption. let’s see, so far we have over 1000 exemptions from obammycare, to include but nlt groups like scientologists, amish, christian scientists, muslims and favored unions.
millions exempt by virtue of …? yeah. corruption as usual.
pls remember, obammy needs a reichstag fire event to raise passions and incite violence, in order to declare martial law or try to stay the next election. nothing gets people in this country madder than an arrogant commie halfwit attacking our religion and our free speech. looks like he hit on the formula. just sayin’
“Shut up,” he explained.