Bishops rip HHS mandate That Forces Coverage of Birth Control, Abortion Drugs

[_Abyssinia]

Good for Dr. Land. I agree with a previous poster that some protestant sects are wishy-washy morally, but not all are.

Where I live, most people are Southern Baptist. Next most numerous is Assemblies of God. I don’t know a single person from either of them who does not think Obama is trying to suppress religious freedom with this. Might be a few, but they sure aren’t being vocal.

Thing is, though, Obama has undoubtedly counted noses and has written obedient Catholics, Southern Baptists and AGs off a long time ago. Let’s hope he miscalculated.

The media is trying to make this a Catholic issue, this is a religious freedom issue. It is good too see Southern Baptists standing for religious liberty.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here is why the individual mandate inevitably leads to full-blown socialized medicine, as it has with Obamacare: When the government mandates that you have to buy health insurance, then it has to specify what health insurance is required to satisfy the mandate. This means politics is involved in deciding what must be included and covered by that insurance.

And once politics is involved, that means you can’t leave anything out, as that would be taken as an offense and a slight to both the consumers and the providers of the excluded service. Mental health benefits and counseling, drug rehab, maternity benefits (even for men and seniors), abortion – everything must be covered. We will see that when the final regulations are issued for Obamacare by the Supreme Dictator, Kathleen Sebelius (who looks and acts the part of a villain from an Ayn Rand novel). We are already seeing that the mandated services must include sterilization and “morning after” pills, which even Catholic institutions will have to pay for in regard to their own employees.

spectator.org/archives/2012/02/08/coulter-care

There is much more, read the entire article.

 

[_Abyssinia]

From an election perspective, the crucial question is how many Catholics who voted for Obama are going to change their mind because of this new policy? Matt and Rence illustrate those who are all too happy to overlook this.

In a real sense, it really doesn’t matter what that number is now. It only matters what it is on election day. Between now and then we need to change minds. Maybe Matt and Rence are hopelessly in love with Obama but there are a lot of folks out there who are just not informed about what has happened already, not to mention what is likely to follow this outrage.

Even if 1%, 2% or 3% of Catholics vote for Obama’s opponent that could change the entire election in favor of Obama’s opponent.

In an op-ed for The Hill last year. Joe Feehery said, ‘Catholic voters don’t like is the idea of the federal government attacking the church for being what it is. And they certainly don’t like the idea of the church’s being sidetracked from its mission of helping the poor and the indigent because of regulations run amok.’ I think this stands.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Even if 1%, 2% or 3% of Catholics vote for Obama’s opponent that could change the entire election in favor of Obama’s opponent.

Obviously I hope you are right but let’s air on the side of caution and inform every Catholic because this is only one of an array of similar issues. And let’s not forget that we have to make sure that Obama’s opponent is going to kill the beast with a stake through the heart, not temporarily suspend it to be revived by the next Democrat president.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obviously I hope you are right but let’s air on the side of caution and inform every Catholic because this is only one of an array of similar issues. And let’s not forget that we have to make sure that Obama’s opponent is going to kill the beast with a stake through the heart, not temporarily suspend it to be revived by the next Democrat president.

I agree. How do you think Obama’s opponent could do that?

 

[_Abyssinia]

How Obama Lost the Catholic Vote

townhall.com/columnists/davidmalcolm/2012/02/08/how_obama_lost_the_catholic_vote/page/full/

 

[_Abyssinia]

Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose New Obama HHS Mandate

New polling data from Rasmussen today shows a majority of Americans oppose the new mandate the Obama administration put into place to force religious employers to pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs that can cause abortions.

In a national survey of 1,000 likely voters, Rasmussen asked, “The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?”

Some 50 percent of those polled said no while 39 percent of Americans agreed.

When asked “Should individuals have the right to choose between different types of health insurance plans, including some that cost more and cover just about all medical procedures and some that cost less while covering only major medical procedures?” 77 percent of respondents said yes while just 9 percent said no. A 45-35 percent plurality disagree when asked, “Should the government require every health insurance company and health insurance plan to cover the exact same set of medical procedures?”

Even on the issue of contraception itself, a 46-43 percent plurality said no when asked, “Should health insurance companies be required by law to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women, without co-payments or other charges to the patient?”

Another 54 percent of Americans, compared with just 16 percent who said it would decrease, said the cost of health insurance will increase if health insurance companies are required to cover all government-approved contraceptives for women.

“Half of voters do not agree with the Obama administration’s action forcing Catholic institutions to pay for birth control measures that they morally oppose,” Rasmussen said of its results. “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require a church or religious organization to provide contraceptives for women even if it violates their deeply held beliefs. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose such a requirement that runs contrary to strong beliefs, while 10% more are undecided.”

The polling firm noted: “Fifty-six percent (56%) of male voters are against the government requiring contraceptive coverage in a case like this. Female voters are almost evenly divided on the question. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Catholic voters oppose this requirement, as do 62% of Evangelical Christians, and 50% of other Protestants. Most non-Christians (56%) support the Obama Administration ruling.”

Ed Morrissey, a pro-life writer at the blog Hot Air, noted more of the numbers from behind the survey and said they are “bad news” for Obama.

“Democrats support his mandate 60/27, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Republicans oppose it 16/75, and a plurality of independents do as well, 43/49,” he wrote about the survey. “Every income demographic except the lowest of under-$20K and $75-100K opposes it by majorities. Only those who never attend religious services or attend less than once a month support the mandate; all other categories oppose it by large majorities. Even the “political class,” usually reliably liberal, opposes the mandate on religious organizations by 25/63.”

lifenews.com/2012/02/08/poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-new-obama-hhs-mandate/

 

[maximus]

How Obama Lost the Catholic Vote

townhall.com/columnists/davidmalcolm/2012/02/08/how_obama_lost_the_catholic_vote/page/full/

I think this article over estimates the level of commitment most Catholics have for Christ and his Church. I know liberal Catholics that would rejoice if the government told the Church what to do in healthcare and even interfering with how the church operates and should ordain women.

God Bless,

Andres

 

[UnityofTrinity]

In my diocese paper I read that there are religious exemptions. The only problem is that some Catholic universities/ other places that cater to a sizable portion of non-catholics must provide contraceptive services with their health care. I fail to see a problem. If these institutions believe in respecting the beliefs of people of different faiths enough to allow them participate and attend school (in the case of the university) then they should provide these health care services to them. The religious institutions are in the wrong here and need to comply with this law, which is completely Constitutional.

Those who decide to enter these catholic universities knew beforehand they’re entering a college found and afflicted with a religious institution. Therefore they must know though they are free to believe in anything and do anything outside campus, while they’re in school, the Church controls the campus

 

[Incomplete]

In my diocese paper I read that there are religious exemptions. The only problem is that some Catholic universities/ other places that cater to a sizable portion of non-catholics must provide contraceptive services with their health care. I fail to see a problem. If these institutions believe in respecting the beliefs of people of different faiths enough to allow them participate and attend school (in the case of the university) then they should provide these health care services to them. The religious institutions are in the wrong here and need to comply with this law, which is completely Constitutional.

You are correct when you say these institutions allow people of all faiths. They don’t, however, force them. When nobody is forced to attend these colleges, why should the Church be forced to go against their beliefs?

I don’t understand why all of a sudden “free” contraception has become a “right.”

 

[JimG]

This was posted before, but it bears repeating:

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), told LifeSiteNews.com “we will not comply” with the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ mandate requiring religious institutions to cover abortifacient products such as Plan B, Ella, and the IUD. “We want the law changed, or else we’re going to write our letters from the Nashville jail, just like Dr. King wrote his from the Birmingham jail,” Dr. Land said."

lifesitenews.com/news/southern-baptist-leader-we-will-not-comply-with-hhs-mandate

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I agree. How do you think Obama’s opponent could do that?

Unless the Supreme Court overturns it, it will take a combined Congress, Senate, and president to undo this. Catholics cannot rely on Obama’s opponent to do it.

But if this invigorates enough Catholics then will matter a lot less who the politicians are.

 

[CMatt25]

It’s about choice, and the government forcing us to make a choice that goes against our freedom to practice our religion.

This violates their constitutional right to freedom to practice religion. That is why many speak out against this mandate who have no moral problems with religion. And it’s why this should concern you even if you do not agree with Church teachings.

So if a religion wants to practice polygamy or gay marriage, or somethng else they wish to practice, you’re fine with it I’ll presume. This is not a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution grants a freedom to exercise religion. But there are laws. And employers for instance are subject to a variety of laws. Minimum wage, work conditions, child labor laws, and so forth. If health coverage is the law, then it’s the law. There are states with similar mandates in place in which Catholics are thriving. There is an exemption for actual churches.

 

[JimG]

See the USCCB response to the White House misrepresentations of its own mandate here:

usccb.org/news/2012/12-020.cfm

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So if a religion wants to practice polygamy or gay marriage, or somethng else they wish to practice, you’re fine with it I’ll presume. This is not a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution grants a freedom to exercise religion. Employers however are subject to a variety of laws. Minimum wage, work conditions, child labor laws, and so forth. If health coverage is the law, then it’s the law. There are states with similar mandates for actual churches in place in which Catholics are thriving. There is an exemption for an actual church.

Funny you should offer this particular excuse…

Modern liberalism has a long history of trying to exclude consideration of the proper ends of human action from public discourse in the name of tolerance. But neither liberalism nor secularism are as neutral about such matters as they pretend.

Self-identified modern liberals (and secularists more generally) typically insist that justice and tolerance demand that governments shouldn’t privilege any conception of morality, religious or secular, in framing its laws.

spectator.org/archives/2012/02/08/obama-and-the-dictatorship-of

 

[CMatt25]

It’s not a matter that Catholics “don’t like” the mandate. It requires a specific violation of our teaching. I don’t like paying taxes, you are right. But it is not against my faith.

The old abortion doctor shooting as religious liberty is a canard. Our faith does not require us to shoot abortion providers does it? We cannot perform abortions or participate but respecting the law and not stopping them by force is not against our faith.

No it’s not against your faith and your faith does not require these things. But if a faith came along and made it a violation of their teaching for adherents to pay taxes, or another faith decided to make blowing up abortion clinics and murdering doctors part of their practice, they wouldn’t have the right to circumvent the law under the banner of religious freedom.

 

[Corki]

So if a religion wants to practice polygamy or gay marriage, or somethng else they wish to practice, you’re fine with it I’ll presume. This is not a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution grants a freedom to exercise religion. But there are laws. And employers for instance are subject to a variety of laws. Minimum wage, work conditions, child labor laws, and so forth. If health coverage is the law, then it’s the law. There are states with similar mandates in place in which Catholics are thriving. There is an exemption for actual churches.

An exemption with criteria that most Catholic Churches couldn’t meet.

A “religious employer” is defined in the rule as an organization that meets all four of the following criteria: (1) the organization’s purpose is the inculcation of religious values (Catholic food banks are out); (2) the organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic universities are out); (3) the organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic hospitals are out); and (4) the organization is a nonprofit that is a house of worship or religious order. Given that houses of worship and religious orders exist with a mission to serve the least amongst us regardless of their faith, that means requirement (3) is not met, so everyone is out.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2843884/posts

If your parish ministers to non-Catholics in any significant way (RCIA, feeding the poor, food pantry) or employs non-Catholics they don’t get the exemption.

Mother Theresa’s Sisters of Charity congregations wouldn’t meet the exemption criteria. Their purpose is to serve the poor and they serve people of all (or no) faith. In fact, I would argue that the Catholic Church’s **purpose **is not inculcation of religious values so all parishes and dioceses would be out.

In another thread, I used my own parish as an example. We are small with only a few paid employees - all are Catholic at this time. On any given weekend, our inner-city outreach feeds more people than we see at Mass. Those people we feed are not necessarily Catholic. Our parish would fail the tests for the exemption.

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about this whole phantom exemption is the last one. Why should it matter who the Church or other religious organization serves? This isn’t coverage for clients. It’s for employees. An organization, that has all Catholic employees would still fail on the basis of having non-Catholic clients or recipients. That “test” seems designed only for the purpose of excluding as many organizations as possible from the exception.

 

[CMatt25]

From an election perspective, the crucial question is how many Catholics who voted for Obama are going to change their mind because of this new policy? Matt and Rence illustrate those who are all too happy to overlook this.

In a real sense, it really doesn’t matter what that number is now. It only matters what it is on election day. Between now and then we need to change minds. Maybe Matt and Rence are hopelessly in love with Obama but there are a lot of folks out there who are just not informed about what has happened already, not to mention what is likely to follow this outrage.

No actually I’m not in love with Obama. I wasn’t in love with him not strongly advocating for a public option in the healthcare debate. Nor with agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest in a time of budget distress at the end of 2010 as just 2 examples. But on the otherhand I understand the need for compromise. The public option aside, single payer was also taken off the table. And ironically if we had a single payer system we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. All that aside, I considered voting 3rd party actually. But have just about come to the conclusion that I must vote for Obama. But less though as a vote for him. More as a vote against his opponents. The “lesser of 2 evils” as they say based on my conscience as to whose overall policies would be worse. The idea of some degree of a check and balance should the Senate go the other direction and just incase the House doesn’t change, is also appealing to me. I’m actually beginning to wonder though if all of this fury has just become something to latch on to for some Obama opponents and for some, not all, more to do with anti Obama politics and not as much about the freedom of religion.

 

[CMatt25]

The media is trying to make this a Catholic issue, this is a religious freedom issue. It is good too see Southern Baptists standing for religious liberty.

And wasn’t it you who posted the United Methodists, Presbyterians USA, Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ are among those who don’t have a problem with it and thus I would gather don’t see it as a religious liberty issue since they’re all religions too?

 

[Incomplete]

So if a religion wants to practice polygamy or gay marriage, or somethng else they wish to practice, you’re fine with it I’ll presume. This is not a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution grants a freedom to exercise religion. But there are laws. And employers for instance are subject to a variety of laws. Minimum wage, work conditions, child labor laws, and so forth. If health coverage is the law, then it’s the law. There are states with similar mandates in place in which Catholics are thriving. There is an exemption for actual churches.

First, my answer was in answer to your question about why it is different to require the Church, as an employer, to be forced to purchase this kind of insurance.

Regarding the other states, there are other exemptions. For example, in some states it is enough to be able to self-insure. You are not forced to buy anything. But anywhere Catholics are forced to participate, it is wrong. It’s not about whether or not Catholics are thriving. You don’t know their spiritual health in any of these places. It’s about being forced to do what they consider evil.

Regarding laws and religion, the government’s laws are supposed to protect it’s vital interests. So no, if something like murder is part of a religion, the government sees an interest in protecting the lives of it’s people. Minimum wage, the government sees a vital interest in helping people to not live in poverty (and then have to have our taxpayers pay for it.) Until recently, the government has seen that polygamy and gay marriage are not in the best interests of children. These are vital interests. Even the government does realize distinctions. Otherwise we would not have any rights to religious freedom. And if the contraception mandate stands, in fact, then we do have no religious rights that can’t be taken away.

But having said that, though I would be morally opposed to some other religious practices, the difference between what you posted above and what the government is doing is about forcing us to take action in something that goes against our beliefs. So to use your gay marriage example, it would be like the government telling our priests they had to “marry” gay couples.

There is no overriding government interest in forcing the Church to provide contraception. People have the option to pay for it themselves (and it can be as cheap as condoms), not have sex, or go to one of the many places that offer contraception for little or nothing. Nobody is forced to work for a Catholic agency. There is no overriding government concern here.

We keep hearing that a huge number of Catholics themselves use contraception. This is proof that a government mandate is not needed to have contraception available. Even if it wasn’t as readily available, why should it be considered a “right” to have “free” contraception, and why should that “right” supersede the right of Catholics to not participate in what they see as as evil?