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

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JRRTFAN said:
Here’s a strange idea, which doesn’t pass muster in the land of La La. If someone does not like the health plan offered by a religious instituion maybe they could work somewhere else? How about that for a wild and crazy idea?
Click to expand...
I like it!👍
 
 
Our bishop here in Illinois wrote a letter to each parish and mandated that it be read at mass. It included all of the details about where to go and find out more information and concluded with a statement to the effect of “We the people are the government. If we sit idly by while this occurs then we the government have spoken.”

Very moving line, I just hope the people in the pews will go to those sites and write those letters as encouraged.
 
CMatt25 said:
For some Christians maybe because Christ said in Matt 25 to care for the ill (NAB, GNT). He didn’t say to assure care is only in reach for some specified lower percentage of the population. And if care is to be provided, someone has to pay for it. A woman who can’t afford care on her own, might want it to protect her health and save her life.
Click to expand...
Well, Matt, how do you square faith based hospitals closing rather than violate their conscience? I’m sure that will do a great deal to helping the poor and underserved.

Thank you for this wonderful president you’ve given us.
 
JRRTFAN said:
Here’s a strange idea, which doesn’t pass muster in the land of La La. If someone does not like the health plan offered by a religious instituion maybe they could work somewhere else? How about that for a wild and crazy idea?
Click to expand...
But . . . but . . . but – that would require people to show some common sense!! Surely that’s unconstitutional!
:eek:
 
Energo said:
gopusa.com/commentary/2012/01/30/kincaid-catholic-church-rejects-surrender-terms-from-obama/?subscriber=1
Click to expand...
What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.
Click to expand...
Here’s what it comes down to…regardless of the actions of the bishops, we must each individually decide to what degree we will submit to this mandate, keeping in mind that revolt just might equate to imprisonment.
 
retantion said:
Just because a piece of legislation goes against your beliefs doesn’t mean it violates freedom of religion. You are still free to practice freedom of religion, you just can’t deny people basic medical treatment/medicine such as contraceptives because you don’t agree with it.
Click to expand...
Of course it violates freedom of religion if the legislation goes against your beliefs. What people mean by freedom of religion is freedom within some absolute limits. But that does not mean that laws will not violated a persons religion.

This law should not apply to institutions that oppose birth control. Precedent exists in that the Amish are not required to contribute to Social Security as it goes against their religious beliefs. Catholics and others who object to this terrible law should peacefully resist as the Amish did. Although I fear the general public will not be as sympathetic with those who oppose the state in this scenario in these terrible times.

If you can’t deny people goods or services under the law then you are asserting positive rights which are the same as slavery. The slave master had a positive right to extract labor from his slave. One could say the slave was denying the master his right the same as one could say the doctor who does not perform a service was denying his patient (in this case master) his right. The US system is supposed to protect negative rights. That is the state prevents people, especially government agents, from taking away natural rights which we classically call freedoms. If some people are owed the work of others it turns out slavery is not as dead as we thought. It just goes under another form that is more pleasing to most.
scipio337 said:
I hate to sound cynical, but we deserve it. You can’t expect to take your 30 pieces of silver, and avoid the consequences.
Click to expand...
This seems to be an obvious result. If this is surprising then one does not understand government and modern America. If one is surprised by this they should probably cease all advocacy until they are caught up on how things work .
 
Recently the entire homily was taken up by a twenty minute video appealing for donations to the diocesan development fund. If that wasn’t enough, the video was followed by a letter repeating the same appeal. I look forward to the Bishop’s in California putting as much effort into fighting this abridgement of religious freedom.
 
I wrote to my Senator, Barbara Mikulski (D), and here is a copy and paste of her erply.

Dear Mr. Carson:

Thank you for getting in touch with me to express your support for the Respect for Rights of Co nscience Act of 2011 (S. 1467). It’s good to hear from you.

I want you to know that I have given the abortion iss ue very serious consideration. As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself wh ether and when to have a child. I also support respecting the rights of medical students and doctors in their choice wheth er or not to perform abortions. Provider conscience protections allow health care workers to refuse to provide health care services based on moral or religious objections, and I have voted in favor of these protections.

I am, however, concerne d about the scope of S. 1467. This legislation would allow any health care insurer or institution to refuse to cover or provide any health care service based on the beliefs of an individual affiliated with the institution. This goes much further than protecting the rights of an individual medical provider. This could result in health insurance plans refusing to cover a range of medical services – from organ transplantation to blood transfusion to family planning services – because of the beliefs of one individual . Similarly, this legislation could result in a hospital denying a woman needed medical care in the event of a life-threatening pregnancy.

I appreciate knowing of your support for the Respect for Rights of Con science Act of 2011 (S. 1467). This legislation is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). I will keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come before the Senate.

Thanks again for writing. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

It appears this will be the tact used to defend this monstrosity.

Peace
 
JRRTFAN said:
Here’s a strange idea, which doesn’t pass muster in the land of La La. If someone does not like the health plan offered by a religious instituion maybe they could work somewhere else? How about that for a wild and crazy idea?
Click to expand...
…or they could <<>> pay for their birth control themselves. :eek:
 
The bishops are actually speaking out en masse against this awful regulation and people are still using it as an opportunity to criticize the bishops. Does anyone else see the irony there?
 
wbeckham78 said:
Recently the entire homily was taken up by a twenty minute video appealing for donations to the diocesan development fund. If that wasn’t enough, the video was followed by a letter repeating the same appeal. I look forward to the Bishop’s in California putting as much effort into fighting this abridgement of religious freedom.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t hold your breath…Cardinal George in Chicago has been slow to react as well…somehow I don’t get that. This is a crucial piece of legislation that if enacted fully will step on our religious freedom as it never has in this country. And some of them are dragging their feet? Why?🤷
 
Joe_5859 said:
The bishops are actually speaking out en masse against this awful regulation and people are still using it as an opportunity to criticize the bishops. Does anyone else see the irony there?
Click to expand...
Excuse me, with all due respect, we need ALL OF OUR BISHOPS TO SPEAK OUT…LOUDLY!!! Yes, it is good that so many are making public statements…something to be proud of. How bout if we can get 100% participation? We need to be totally unified on this. It’s the only chance we have.

And then again, maybe it will come if I just have a little patience.:o
 
bcarson said:
I wrote to my Senator, Barbara Mikulski (D), and here is a copy and paste of her erply.

Dear Mr. Carson:

Thank you for getting in touch with me to express your support for the Respect for Rights of Co nscience Act of 2011 (S. 1467). It’s good to hear from you.

I want you to know that I have given the abortion iss ue very serious consideration. As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself wh ether and when to have a child. I also support respecting the rights of medical students and doctors in their choice wheth er or not to perform abortions. Provider conscience protections allow health care workers to refuse to provide health care services based on moral or religious objections, and I have voted in favor of these protections.

I am, however, concerne d about the scope of S. 1467. This legislation would allow any health care insurer or institution to refuse to cover or provide any health care service based on the beliefs of an individual affiliated with the institution. This goes much further than protecting the rights of an individual medical provider. This could result in health insurance plans refusing to cover a range of medical services – from organ transplantation to blood transfusion to family planning services – because of the beliefs of one individual . Similarly, this legislation could result in a hospital denying a woman needed medical care in the event of a life-threatening pregnancy.

I appreciate knowing of your support for the Respect for Rights of Con science Act of 2011 (S. 1467). This legislation is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). I will keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come before the Senate.

Thanks again for writing. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

It appears this will be the tact used to defend this monstrosity.

Peace
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. It was…interesting.
 
CMatt25 said:
For some Christians maybe because Christ said in Matt 25 to care for the ill (NAB, GNT). He didn’t say to assure care is only in reach for some specified lower percentage of the population. And if care is to be provided, someone has to pay for it. A woman who can’t afford care on her own, might want it to protect her health and save her life.
Click to expand...
I believe this is an example of twisting the Gospel. Christ’s injunctions are NOT aimed at the US governement or any government. They are aimed at indicviduals. Individuals need to help the needy not only because it is just but also because in doing so they open themselves to Christ’s love in the act of selflessly giving to another.

Frankly the lack of subsidiarity and specificity in placement of my tax dollars removes that agape action from money conscripted from me by the government (taxes) even as the bureacracy removes subsidiarity from any good actions that might result from such a governmental action.

However, time and money given to a faith filled Catholic hospital would be a work of mercy.
 
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Monday introduced legislation to overturn Obama administration regulations that would require most health plans to pay for birth control, including those provided by religiously affiliated hospitals and universities.
Click to expand...
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S. 2043, would roll back the Department of Health and Human Service’s mandate earlier this month that requires health plans, beginning Aug. 1, to cover birth control without a co-pay or a deductible.
Click to expand...
thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/207601-rubio-looks-to-oveturn-obamas-birth-control-regulations
 
I wonder what happens if every catholic institution in America just says NO!

Refuses to cover abortive, sterilization or contraception services AND refuses to pay the fine associated with it.

What are they going to do, jail millions of catholics? I say we fight. Refuse. Say NO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top