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.
Well, they were

What is more difficult is getting a direct answer from Catholic Obama supporters:

“Do you support this decision by the administration?”
I’ve personally answered that question many times, though I don’t officially support any candidate yet. My answer is this: Considering that I have worked in a Catholic hospital years ago, way before Obama, and contraceptive pills were covered and the member only had to pay a $10 co-pay, I’m not opposed to it. I have a secular employer now and everything under the women’s health umbrella is covered. As a Catholic, I just didn’t use those benefits and it was as simple as that. I wouldn’t appreciate it if my employer based my benefits on his/her religious rules and laws and I’m glad they can’t and never have. The costs of these benefits are already carved into the premiums, deductibles, co-pays and provider discounts. So everyone, regardless of what they use or not use, is paying for it all anyway. It’ll be interesting watching how all this will churn out though.
 
CMatt,

Do everyone a favor and stop derailing this thread. We know where you stand, we disagree. If you wish to start a thread challenging the teaching of the Church on these matters, I would likely chime in and I am sure many others would as well.
On what matters? If you mean abortion, it’s in the thread title and I have merely been responding to questions addressed to me or to posts by others such as the one where someone stated Obama hates Christianity. But I’ll gladly leave the thread to yourselves.
 
I’ve personally answered that question many times, though I don’t officially support any candidate yet. My answer is this: Considering that I have worked in a Catholic hospital years ago, way before Obama, and contraceptive pills were covered and the member only had to pay a $10 co-pay, I’m not opposed to it. I have a secular employer now and everything under the women’s health umbrella is covered. As a Catholic, I just didn’t use those benefits and it was as simple as that. I wouldn’t appreciate it if my employer based my benefits on his/her religious rules and laws and I’m glad they can’t and never have. The costs of these benefits are already carved into the premiums, deductibles, co-pays and provider discounts. So everyone, regardless of what they use or not use, is paying for it all anyway. It’ll be interesting watching how all this will churn out though.
Before I depart the thread Rence, that was a nice, reasonable post. I learn a lot from you.
 
I’ve personally answered that question many times, though I don’t officially support any candidate yet. My answer is this: Considering that I have worked in a Catholic hospital years ago, way before Obama, and contraceptive pills were covered and the member only had to pay a $10 co-pay, I’m not opposed to it. I have a secular employer now and everything under the women’s health umbrella is covered. As a Catholic, I just didn’t use those benefits and it was as simple as that. I wouldn’t appreciate it if my employer based my benefits on his/her religious rules and laws and I’m glad they can’t and never have. The costs of these benefits are already carved into the premiums, deductibles, co-pays and provider discounts. So everyone, regardless of what they use or not use, is paying for it all anyway. It’ll be interesting watching how all this will churn out though.
But you don’t see a fundamental difference between a Catholic hospital choosing to cover items that go against Catholic teaching (I’m not in favor of it, but that’s between the hospital and its board) and being forced by executive fiat?

The hospital can’t choose to “not use those benefits” in this case, without facing a rather steep fine.
 
So why doesn’t the Church just come out and say point blank that Catholics must not under any circumstances vote for Obama and accept it if they lose their tax exempt status? Are you saying they withhold truth to avoid paying tax?
Because that would violate catholic principles, not just IRS ones. The Church learned hard and well long ago to identify moral issues, teach principles and trust the laity to make prudential judgements applying those principles.

In the parish I attended last weekend, the bishop described the HHS policy as an attack on catholic institutions and asked people to resume praying the St. Michael prayer again at every mass (note to the historically impaired that the last time this was requested was when communism was demolishing the Church via the Soviets).

He, for one, came as close as a bishop can within the bounds of catholic teaching of specifically identifying a specific politician’s policies as demonic.
 
No. Actually I’ve struggled with the balancing of rights on the issue even though I wasn’t aborted. A candidate being pro choice isn’t even the determining factor on for whom I vote.
Right. You’ve looked at the 60 million of so Americans who have died in the last 40 years from exposure, starvation, poor housing and inadequate unionization and calculated that it outweighed the impact 52 million dead babies resulting from Roe v Wade and its impassioned defenders.

I’m having some trouble with that first part though. I can’t seem to find that many victims. Can you point me in the right direction?
 
But you don’t see a fundamental difference between a Catholic hospital choosing to cover items that go against Catholic teaching (I’m not in favor of it, but that’s between the hospital and its board) and being forced by executive fiat?

The hospital can’t choose to “not use those benefits” in this case, without facing a rather steep fine.
Maybe I misread what Rence already said. I thought she already said as a Catholic she simply doesn’t use such benefits but wouldn’t want her employers basing benefits on their religious beliefs and that Catholics are already being forced to pay for such benefits anyway hidden in the costs of your premiums, deductibles, and copays.
 
Right. You’ve looked at the 60 million of so Americans who have died in the last 40 years from exposure, starvation, poor housing and inadequate unionization and calculated that it outweighed the impact 52 million dead babies resulting from Roe v Wade and its impassioned defenders.

I’m having some trouble with that first part though. I can’t seem to find that many victims. Can you point me in the right direction?
No because I might get accused of derailing the thread if I reply.
 
Maybe I misread what Rence already said. I thought she already said as a Catholic she simply doesn’t use such benefits but wouldn’t want her employers basing benefits on their religious beliefs and that Catholics are already being forced to pay for such benefits anyway hidden in the costs of your premiums, deductibles, and copays.
I see that as the employer’s right, particularly when the employer has a religious affiliation.

Even Canada offers that right through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
 
The caring for the sick part Christ emphaszed. Depends on the poll. At the time I even saw polls of majorities wanting a public option to be included. Many were in favor of such aspects as the sick with pre existing conditions not being denied coverage and children being able to remain on their parents’ coverage longer.
Well, prior to Obamacare, most Americans had health insurance and were happy with what they had. True, insurers could except “preexisting conditions”, but in ERISA qualified plans, which virtually all are, they could except it for one year only, then they had to cover it. Some people had no coverage by an insurer, for various reasons; some by choice, some because they were illegal, some because they were between employments. Nobody really knew how many were without coverage, but the truly poor had medicaid and the elderly had medicare. And nobody knew either how many people who “didnt have insurance” could apply retroactively for Medicaid coverage. We only knew that it was not uncommon. There were various estimates as to the number of uninsured, but the number floated around 20-30 million.

Obama has admitted that Obamacare will not cover some 20 million. Again, a “guesstimate” because nobody really knows.

But mandates started and will come with a vengeance in 2014. The president will pretty much be able to dictate to insurers what they will or won’t do. Among other things, “child only” policies, which were inexpensive previously, are very expensive because of the mandated coverage. So, people can’t get those as readily or cheaply as before, but 25-year-olds who are either in graduate school or lolling about living off their parents get coverage. But the little kids can still go to the ER at $700 a pop, or do without, and that’s fine. And, of course, Obama dictated that Medicaid reimbursements would go up for “well care” and down for the truly ill. So now, a physician gets $20 for an office visit, which won’t pay his secretary’s salary and benefits, let alone his malpractice insurance. And, of course, no benefits of any other kind have been given to the truly poor. So I guess they can just eat cake. But we did subsidize middle class people who can afford to buy new cars with “cash for clunkers”. We did do that. Of course, the poor are the ones who buy "clunkers’, so they couldn’t buy the ones that were destroyed. But let them ride dream ponies, right? Why would they need to travel? They might actually be able to have jobs if they could get to them, but never mind.

And, of course, Medicaid coverage will be expanded under Obamacare so the physicians who will only take so many Medicaid patients will now have a lot more who will be seeking care, which they will refuse to take. How many of those new Medicaid people had health insurance before? Nobody knows. Nobody who voted for Obamacare knew either, or, apparently, cared to know.

Well, we did need to provide for “no deductibles or co-pays” for “well woman care”, which includes contraception, sterilization and chemical abortion plus whatever Obama decides to include later by decree. That will make costs of insurance increase and there is no corresponding “freebie” for men, but that’s understandable because Planned Parenthood’s major clients are women and providing additional “free” benefits to men would not benefit Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not, after all, do prostate exams.

What Obamacare really is, is a subsidy by one segment of the middle class (Families of four or fewer making over $88,000.00/year to another segment of the middle class (Families of four or more making up to $88,000/year.)

And after 2013, Obama will be able to decree any other alteration in coverage he wants, any mandates he wants, any cost increases he wants. And, since Obamacare does not prevent him from decreeing that even surgical abortions, even late term abortions must be paid for by insurers, he has finessed his own “executive order” (which he can withdraw at any time anyway) saying Obamacare can’t pay for abortions. But, as the USCCB and Catholic institutions have found to their sorrow, it’s meaningless anyway because he can just order insurance companies to pay for it and order the employers and insureds to pay the insurers.

But then, Obama didn’t want it himself. He wanted full socialized medicine, which he called the “public option”. Obamacare was designed to fail, and it will fail, because shortly most people will be unable to afford insurance and nobody will treat the rush of Medicaid people. But for now, everybody has to pretend Obama really intended it to succeed when he and everybody else knows it won’t.

In the meantime, fewer people will be able to get medical care than before.

And some think this is what Christ would have wanted?
 
But you don’t see a fundamental difference between a Catholic hospital choosing to cover items that go against Catholic teaching (I’m not in favor of it, but that’s between the hospital and its board) and being forced by executive fiat?

The hospital can’t choose to “not use those benefits” in this case, without facing a rather steep fine.
If a religious institution employs people of all faiths and cultures, and serves the population in general, it should be held to the same standards, rules and laws that any secular employer does. If a religious institution only employs peoples of that religion and serves only people of that religion, then it’s fair they get to push their religious weight around by limiting the goods, services and benefits of those employed and served by them. So if regulations are put in place that make certain benefits available across the board, compliance should be based on the above.
 
If a religious institution employs people of all faiths and cultures, and serves the population in general, it should be held to the same standards, rules and laws that any secular employer does. If a religious institution only employs peoples of that religion and serves only people of that religion, then it’s fair they get to push their religious weight around by limiting the goods, services and benefits of those employed and served by them. So if regulations are put in place that make certain benefits available across the board, compliance should be based on the above.
Thus does Obamacare force Catholics, and all religions, back into a ghetto.

And, yet, the distinction that you draw is entirely arbitrary. There is no reason to think that this will hold going forward either.

The the ghetto is not a sanctuary.
 
“Single Issue” Voting Returns–with a Vengence
Catholic voting is not “single issue,” but it does prioritize some central important concerns over others.
Liberal Catholics who were looking for an excuse to support pro-abortion Democrats have long criticized pro-life Catholics for saying that the murder of over a million innocent children a year in the U.S. actually takes priority over issues that liberals prefer Democrats on.
catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25809
 
From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Back in May 2009, during the controversy over Notre Dame’s decision to have President Obama as their commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient, I gave a short statement to the Boston Herald: “My favorite grandpa, Clem James Sheeran, was Catholic. Irish to the core, his favorite place (other than church) was Notre Dame. I can’t imagine what he would think as the university recognizes someone who contradicts the core values of the Catholic faith by promoting an anti-life agenda.”

In his latest Washington Post column, Michael Gerson writes about the Obama administration’s war on Catholic institutions with President Obama’s decision to strip conscience protections from Catholic universities, hospitals and charities.

As Gershon points out, the timing of Obama’s most recent slap won’t go unnoticed by the faithful: "In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. Preparing for the march, Catholic students gathered for Mass at Verizon Center. The faithful held vigil at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Knights of Columbus and bishops arrived to trudge in the cold along the Mall. All came to Washington in time for their mocking.”

And in this we see how the faithful at Notre Dame got snookered and how Obama has shamefully repaid their faith in him:
Code:
 Both radicalism and maliciousness are at work in Obama’s decision — an edict delivered with a sneer... 
 
The implications of Obama’s choice will take years to sort through. The immediate impact can be measured on three men:



Consider Catholicism’s most prominent academic leader, the Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame. Jenkins took a serious risk in sponsoring Obama’s 2009 honorary degree and commencement address — which promised a “sensible” approach to the conscience clause. Jenkins now complains, “This is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here.” Obama has made Jenkins — and other progressive Catholic allies — look easily duped.
  • Sarah Palin
 
Thus does Obamacare force Catholics, and all religions, back into a ghetto.

And, yet, the distinction that you draw is entirely arbitrary. There is no reason to think that this will hold going forward either.

The the ghetto is not a sanctuary.
It’s arbitrary to you because you’re opposed to it. I didn’t say it would hold going forward either. What I said was, it will be interesting seeing how it will churn. Only time will tell. I guess it depends on how much support it gets from voters, who vary in beliefs and in wants.
 
Folks, you all just wait and see.

If this gets strong enough legs, Obama will “relent” with some kind of improvisation designed to fool Catholics who want to be fooled. “Oh, goodness me, what WAS that Kathleen thinking. Why, of course you’ll get an exemption. You can’t expect me to be an expert in Catholic theology, after all.” Some such lame thing.

I can assure you he has polling companies and focus groups working on it right now, and he’s counting Catholic noses in those efforts. If it looks bad for him, then he’ll work on some new way to fool everybody, and he’ll employ his “fellow traveling Catholics” to do it. We’ll see them even in here.

Or, his focus groups and polling will tell him he can safely attack the Church on this right now, and he’ll go all righteous about 'separation of church and state", and he’ll try to turn women against the Church, and the slavish media will repeatedly ask “Do you want this man (Dolan) in your bedroom?”, or something of the sort; a twofer for him.

It will be one or the other. Wait and see. His people are unquestionably working on it right now. But either way, he will be relentless in his attacks on the Church if he’s re-elected.
My thoughts exactly! In fact I was just thinking this afternoon how he would probably come up with something that would appear to solve the problem. Let’s make everybody happy!:mad: But in essense would be just as contrictive if not more in the end.

I said from the very beginning of his Presidency that he would be dangerous…and he’s certainly not disappointed.
 
Not necessarily. Though I don’t see the word “abortion” in the Bible, I actually don’t see the issue as black and white and neatly fitting into a box either. I actually find it one of the most difficult issues a society of plural beliefs must wrestle and come to terms with.
All that wrestling must be hard. To kill life or not to kill - that is the question?? I believe I’ll stick to an objective moral truth as revealed by God.
 
It’s arbitrary to you because you’re opposed to it. I didn’t say it would holf going forward either. What I said was, it will be interesting seeing how it will churn. Only time will tell. I guess it depends on how much support it gets from voters, who vary in beliefs and in wants.
It is arbitrary because it is arbitrary.

We don’t need to wait to see how this will turn out. Anyone can see where this is going.

To pretend otherwise is nothing less than an act of willful ignorance.

There is absolutely no point in trying to defend that distinction.

It will be interesting to see if Catholics continue to respect a law that treats them as outlaws.
 
Because that would violate catholic principles, not just IRS ones. The Church learned hard and well long ago to identify moral issues, teach principles and trust the laity to make prudential judgements applying those principles.

In the parish I attended last weekend, the bishop described the HHS policy as an attack on catholic institutions and asked people to resume praying the St. Michael prayer again at every mass (note to the historically impaired that the last time this was requested was when communism was demolishing the Church via the Soviets).

He, for one, came as close as a bishop can within the bounds of catholic teaching of specifically identifying a specific politician’s policies as demonic.
Realizing that in this climate one must be careful with words, but might as well call a spade a spade…that’s what these policies are…demonic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top