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

[Bubba_Switzler]

The cost of the new added benefits is already being paid for in deductibles, copays, premiums and provider discounts.

Thank you for demonstrating for everyone the “logic” of the slippery slope. Yes, many companies already choose do this. And you think that makes it ok to force Catholic institutions to do this also.

As a Catholic, I don’t feel Catholics are prevented by law from practicing Catholicism. We just can’t controls others to be Catholic. The ability to control another person’s actions is not what freedom is. The US is one of the best places to live and I’m glad I’m here. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else. I’m sorry you think that you don’t have it good enough here.

What you feel is really not the issue. Nor is this a question of whether Catholics can control others. It is a question of whether Catholics can control themselves.

Obama says “no”, Catholics may not practice Catholicism where it conflicts with Obamaism.

We shall see what Catholics say in response but many bishops are already calling for civil disobedience.

 

[JimG]

Under this arbitrary mandate, imposed solely at the whim of the head of the HHS, Catholic institutions will be forced to reject their Catholic identity or to go out of business.

This mandate was not within the health care bill. Not one of the thousands of pages of this bill mandated it. No, it was mandated by the agency to which oversight of the law was given, the HHS, and its pro-abortion head, Kathleen Sebelius.

Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic charitable organizations, are now presented with this option: Give in to this mandate and violate their Catholic identity, or simply cease to be Catholic. Stay Catholic and shut down, or reject Catholicism and remain open.

If that isn’t diabolical, what is?

 

[Rence]

Bold Lettering Mine

Nimzovik Responds.

cough cough Ahem? Controlling others is not what the Catholics are doing in this our discussed thread. Aucontraire!! It is the Gov’t controlling Catholics!
This is really rather evident to those that do not have a contrary agenda.

Well, I don’t have any agenda at all. I just don’t agree with you

Thankfully we live in a country where we can disagree with each other

The government doesn’t control me as a Catholic so I just can’t relate to this claim that they’re trying to control Catholics. Sorry, with all due respect, I just disagree with you.

 

[Nimzovik]

JMG WROTE:

Under this arbitrary mandate, imposed solely at the whim of the head of the HHS, Catholic institutions will be forced to reject their Catholic identity or to go out of business.

This mandate was not within the health care bill. Not one of the thousands of pages of this bill mandated it. No, it was mandated by the agency to which oversight of the law was given, the HHS, and its pro-abortion head, Kathleen Sebelius.

Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic charitable organizations, are now presented with this option: Give in to this mandate and violate their Catholic identity, or simply cease to be Catholic. Stay Catholic and shut down, or reject Catholicism and remain open.

If that isn’t diabolical, what is?

**Nimzovik responds: **

Well said.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There’s nothing to stop them from practicing Catholicism. The burden that they place on themselves in trying to control the actions of others, and the inability to do so, is what makes them so unhappy. There are places in the world where one can’t practice Catholicism. So to claim that Catholics aren’t allowed to practice Catholicism is just silly. It also downplays the severity of the situations of those living in places in which they truly are persecuted for being Catholics, and that’s unfortunate. Of course we can practice Catholicism, and we don’t have to worry about being persecuted for it. However, we are not allowed to control the actions of others or somehow make them follow Catholic rules and laws. That’s something people have to do voluntarily on their own. If people would concentrate on being living examples of Catholics and stop basing their freedom on the choices of others, they’d be a lot happier and their living example would shine.

Does anyone really believe the motivation of the Catholic bishops and institutions is “control the actions of others”? Their motivation is to control their own actions alone, and Obama is the one trying to “control the actions” of churches. And just how does one think Catholic directors of institutions “would concentrate on being living examples of Catholics” if they countenance paying for abortion and “controlling the actions of the others” who do not want to subsidize it in paying their premiums? What kind of “living example” is that?

King Henry VIII passed the Act of Supremacy, by which he made himself the final authority over the actions of the Church in England. The First Amendment of the Constitution was adopted to prevent precisely that. Even Elana Kagan, in her concurring opinion in Hosana-Tabor recognized that. Nevertheless, Obama is, by increments, imposing his own Act of Supremacy. “Your religion prohibits you from supporting abortion. Too bad. I say you must. Fail in that and you will be punished.” And, of course, Henry VIII, by his rules, made it impossible for Catholics to remain faithful to both the Church and to his edicts. And, until now, many of us thought that sort of thing had been prohibited in the U.S.

 

[Rence]

Nimzovik Reponds.

Thats… funny. I as a Catholic always feel discriminated against when my freedoms are arbitrarily eliminated.

I would feel discrimated against if my freedoms were eliminated too. That’s just it: increasing benefits is not eliminating anything.

 

[JimG]

I would feel discrimated against if my freedoms were eliminated too. That’s just it: increasing benefits is not eliminating anything.

Yes, it is eliminating Catholic hospitals by forcing them out of business.

 

[Nimzovik]

Well, I don’t have any agenda at all. I just don’t agree with you

Thankfully we live in a country where we can disagree with each other

The government doesn’t control me as a Catholic so I just can’t relate to this claim that they’re trying to control Catholics. Sorry, with all due respect, I just disagree with you.

Nimzovik Responds:

Wait! The Gov’t just said that Catholics can not practice their religion in regard to providing health care and you say the Gov’t is NOT controlling you? Do I have that right?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Under this arbitrary mandate, imposed solely at the whim of the head of the HHS, Catholic institutions will be forced to reject their Catholic identity or to go out of business.

This mandate was not within the health care bill. Not one of the thousands of pages of this bill mandated it. No, it was mandated by the agency to which oversight of the law was given, the HHS, and its pro-abortion head, Kathleen Sebelius.

I must respectfully disagree with this. It is common practice for bureaucracy to add details as they implement legislation. Anyone who supported Obamcare because it didn’t explicitly require Catholics to fund abortion simply did not think ahead. Congress gave HHS the power to decide what health care policies must include. Catholic Kathleen Sebelius was certainly operating within the letter of the law in this decision.

Catholic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Now we are finding out.

 

[Rence]

Thank you for demonstrating for everyone the “logic” of the slippery slope. Yes, many companies already choose do this. And you think that makes it ok to force Catholic institutions to do this also.

What you feel is really not the issue. Nor is this a question of whether Catholics can control others. It is a question of whether Catholics can control themselves.

Obama says “no”, Catholics may not practice Catholicism where it conflicts with Obamaism.

We shall see what Catholics say in response but many bishops are already calling for civil disobedience.

I realize that what I feel (as well as what others feel) is not the issue for you. I understand that.

But I agree that the important factor is Catholics controling themselves. And people need to have faith that others can control themselves.

What do the Bishops want Catholics to do? What kind of civil obedience do they want Catholics to commit exactly?

 

[manualman]

No, it’s not. It’s true: Catholics are free to be Catholics and practice Catholicism. What they are not allowed to do is make others be Catholic and practice Catholicism.

Only if you define ‘Catholicism’ as what people call themselves and what they do on Sunday. But if said catholics dare to build and operate hospitals as part of their Lord’s mandate to care for the sick, then they must become schitzophrenic when it comes to providing the employees of that hospital with health care coverage. They must pay for any employee who wants an abortion pill to have one, even if such behavior flies in the face of who they are at their core.

Dress it up any way you want, but you’ve just utterly changed the nature of that institution from one that (at least potentially) exudes the gospel to one that cooperates in murder. That is basically the definition of tyranny.

I find that it helps to look at similar principles at work in different situations. This is essentially the same policy that the federal government enacted in years prior to the civil war in which northern abolitionists who were found to be participating in helping escaped slaves reach Canda were required by the court to pay restitution to the slave owner for his lost property so that he could ‘purchase’ a replacement slave. And the Quakers of the day took it about as well as we are right now. Fuming!

That Obama, given his family background, could be so idiotically blind to the principle is amazing.

 

[Nimzovik]

I would feel discrimated against if my freedoms were eliminated too. That’s just it: increasing benefits is not eliminating anything.

Nimzovik Responds

But it is** not** just a matter of ‘increasing benefits’ now is it?Ahemmmmmmmm??

 

[Rence]

Nimzovik Responds:

Wait! The Gov’t just said that Catholics can not practice their religion in regard to providing health care and you say the Gov’t is NOT controlling you? Do I have that right?

Yes, that’s correct. Making benefits available doesn’t mean one is required to use them. If one doesn’t want to use them, one doesn’t have to use them.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What do the Bishops want Catholics to do? What kind of civil obedience do they want Catholics to commit exactly?

I am looking forward to finding out. But I think at last they have their backs against the wall and they will no longer be able to finesse the matter.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Only if you define ‘Catholicism’ as what people call themselves and what they do on Sunday. But if said catholics dare to build and operate hospitals as part of their Lord’s mandate to care for the sick, then they must become schitzophrenic when it comes to providing the employees of that hospital with health care coverage.

Indeed, this is the difference between freedom of worship and freedom of religion.

 

[Rence]

Nimzovik Responds

But it is** not** just a matter of ‘increasing benefits’ now is it?Ahemmmmmmmm??

Yes, that’s what it’s about.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Yes, that’s correct. Making benefits available doesn’t mean one is required to use them. If one doesn’t want to use them, one doesn’t have to use them.

But one does have to pay for others who do in higher premiums or fines. Believe me,
every “mandate” in health care insurance has a price tag.

 

[Nimzovik]

Yes, that’s correct. Making benefits available doesn’t mean one is required to use them. If one doesn’t want to use them, one doesn’t have to use them.

**Nimzovik Responds: **

Soooooo… by your logic of " If one doesn’t want to use them, one doesn’t have to use them." I guess it is **fair **that Catholics should be able to say “If one doesn’t want to PROVIDE them, one doesn’t have to PROVIDE them.” Them being of course abortion services as dictated - yes dictated is the operative word here…by our Gov’t. Eh wot?

 

[Rence]

Forcing Catholic Institutions to pay for artificial BC and other evils is against the institution’s rights and freedoms.

It’s already being paid for in the form of premiums, copays, deductibles and provider discounts. So these same folks who say they don’t wanna pay for it, are already doing so. So that can’t be the bone of contention. The bone of contention is that they don’t want it available to their employees because they don’t approve of their employee’s choice to take advantage of those benefits.

 

[Nimzovik]

It’s already being paid for in the form of premiums, copays, deductibles and provider discounts. So these same folks who say they don’t wanna pay for it, are already doing so. So that can’t be the bone of contention. The bone of contention is that they don’t want it available to their employees because they don’t approve of their employee’s choice to take advantage of those benefits.

Nimzovik Responds

Bingo! It is called *“FREEDOM OF RELIGION”. This is the ***right ***that is being trampled upon. *