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.
**A Battle the President Can’t Win **

“President Obama just may have lost the election. The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says under ObamaCare Catholic Institutions—including its charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business. In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can’t be Catholic anymore.” - Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal

Ross Douthat examines and rebuts the defenses of Obama’s intervention.
 
_Abyssinia said:
**A Battle the President Can’t Win **

“President Obama just may have lost the election. The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says under ObamaCare Catholic Institutions—including its charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business. In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can’t be Catholic anymore.” - Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal

Ross Douthat examines and rebuts the defenses of Obama’s intervention.
Click to expand...
…yet how many catholics voted this man into power?
 
pnewton said:
She has this backwards, as to who is imposint their views on whom. A person still has the right to contraceptices, or any insurance they want to get. What is being imposed is the will of secular government on Churches that they pony up the money or insurance for these immoral acts. I find a great irony that it is the ACLU that stands in opposition to the First Amendment on this issue.

The charge of discrimination is absurd. No one is suggesting the coverage differ from person to person. The speaker here used the word “discrimnation” just as empty rhetoric. In this issue, we see the true hypocricy of modern liberalism. They rail against intolerance, yet they themselves are the most intolerant of all when it comes to people of faith.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping:
 
k5thbeatle said:
…yet how many catholics voted this man into power?
Click to expand...
I think Catholics did put Obama into White House last time. Hopefully those people will all wake up and come to their sense and conscience this time. At least three young people in my own family who all voted him last time are now waking up and have decided not to vote for him again. There is hope.
 
pnewton said:
She has this backwards, as to who is imposint their views on whom. A person still has the right to contraceptices, or any insurance they want to get. What is being imposed is the will of secular government on Churches that they pony up the money or insurance for these immoral acts. I find a great irony that it is the ACLU that stands in opposition to the First Amendment on this issue.

The charge of discrimination is absurd. No one is suggesting the coverage differ from person to person. The speaker here used the word “discrimnation” just as empty rhetoric. In this issue, we see the true hypocricy of modern liberalism. They rail against intolerance, yet they themselves are the most intolerant of all when it comes to people of faith.
Click to expand...
It’s important, though, to understand the enemy and not to underestimate his determination. They do think that they are standing up for justice and fairness against darkness and bigotry. This was not an erroneous political calculation that can be undone by a show of determination. Don’t expect a quick, easy victory.

To see why, just look at how the Koman foundation is being treated for having withdrawn support for Planned Parenthood. (Who knew that abortion was so critical to preventing breast cancer!)
 
_Abyssinia said:
**A Battle the President Can’t Win **

"President Obama just may have lost the election. The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says under ObamaCare Catholic Institutions—including its charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures.
Click to expand...
This depends on who is running. Mitt Romney did the same thing in Massachusettes that Obama is now doing.

boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/03/mitt_romney_caught_in_inconsistency_in_blast_at_barack_obama_for_forcing_catholic_institutions_to_provide_insured_birth_control/?p1=News_links
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
It’s important, though, to understand the enemy and not to underestimate his determination. They do think that they are standing up for justice and fairness against darkness and bigotry. This was not an erroneous political calculation that can be undone by a show of determination. Don’t expect a quick, easy victory.

To see why, just look at how the Koman foundation is being treated for having withdrawn support for Planned Parenthood. (Who knew that abortion was so critical to preventing breast cancer!)
Click to expand...
The Komen foundation just reversed itself and is now going to fund PP.

Headline on MSNBC
 
Rence said:
Yeah, I realize that you agree with pnewton and that I’m in the minority 🙂 It’s okay, we aren’t going to agree on everything. But I would hope we’d come out of a discussion thread at least trying to understand each other. Perhaps my perspective, as I’ve said many times, stems from the fact that I’ve worked in a Catholic hospital and ABCs were covered so that the employs only paid a $10 copay at their pharmacy. In addition, I’ve always had such coverage and I’ve never been tempted to use any of the coverage, so it really hasn’t made a difference at all.

Also, I disagree about the culpability of employers who are mandated to offer such coverage. If the law is tying employers’ hands, I believe the employers are the ones putting undue burdens on themselves. The mandate and the culpability is on the shoulders of those who created the mandate.

Does anyonw know what has the Vatican said about the culpability placed on the employers who are mandated to offer such coverage? from JReducation
In the 200 year plus history of the USA, the Vatican has never directly mandated anything of American Catholics. All mandates have been universal, for all Catholics. Twice now the Vatican has spoken directly to the Catholics in the USA through the bishops.
Click to expand...
Think you should name the hospital and the diocese so the local ordinary can follow up or at least explain how this is consistent with Catholic teaching. And if it isn’t either the hospital needs its polocies changed or lose the Catholic affiliation.
 
stevegravy said:
Think you should name the hospital and the diocese so the local ordinary can follow up or at least explain how this is consistent with Catholic teaching. And if it isn’t either the hospital needs its polocies changed or lose the Catholic affiliation.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to report them. They are a wonderful service to the community and don’t need everything turned upside down. Again, people don’t need to use the benefits if they don’t want to. They’re available for those who want to use them.
 
Rence said:
I’m not going to report them. They are a wonderful service to the community and don’t need everything turned upside down. Again, people don’t need to use the benefits if they don’t want to. They’re available for those who want to use them.
Click to expand...
Well then, if they are wonderfully Catholic then why not let them bask in the glory, what could possibly lead to things turned upside down?
 
stevegravy said:
Well then, if they are wonderfully Catholic then why not let them bask in the glory, what could possibly lead to things turned upside down?
Click to expand...
Well, obviously, fighting with people who don’t agree with their policies might lead to things being turned upside down. They’ve been in operation for decades afterall and they’ve been doing just fine.
 
Suudy said:
In case you missed the earlier post, whether “people don’t need to use the benefits if they don’t want to” is irrelevant. The issue isn’t whether the benefits are available, but the paying for immoral benefits by Church institutions.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8910837&postcount=569
Click to expand...
In case you missed the earlier post, I was asked why I won’t report the hospital that I previously worked for, and that was my answer. I understand that you don’t agree, but that was the answer I provided to the question that was asked of me.
 
pnewton said:
This depends on who is running. Mitt Romney did the same thing in Massachusettes that Obama is now doing.

boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/03/mitt_romney_caught_in_inconsistency_in_blast_at_barack_obama_for_forcing_catholic_institutions_to_provide_insured_birth_control/?p1=News_links
Click to expand...
Romney vetoed the legislation that would of forced private hospitals to offer the morning after pill to rape victims. The legislature overrode Romney’s veto after Romney tried to make an exemption for hospitals by citing a conscience clause in state law which protects private hospitals.
 
Rence said:
In case you missed the earlier post, I was asked why I won’t report the hospital that I previously worked for, and that was my answer. I understand that you don’t agree, but that was the answer I provided to the question that was asked of me.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to your answer to why you won’t report the hospital. I was referring to your claim that “people don’t need to use the benefits if they don’t want to”. I posted a link to a roundtable discussion by Catholic theologians who don’t see this as a valid reason to purchase coverage for immoral procedures and medicines.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Romney vetoed the legislation that would of forced private hospitals to offer the morning after pill to rape victims. The legislature overrode Romney’s veto after Romney tried to make an exemption for hospitals by citing a conscience clause in state law which protects private hospitals.
Click to expand...
From the article:
He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’
Click to expand...
 
pnewton said:
In this issue, we see the true hypocricy of modern liberalism. They rail against intolerance, yet they themselves are the most intolerant of all when it comes to people of faith.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. They are actually showing tolerance of people of faith. But in showing tolerance one must first recognize there are other faiths besides the Catholic faith. So they’ve attempted to reach a compromise. As Rence has repeatedly said time and time again and I will echo her comment. Catholics can still practice their faith and not use the benefits.

But non Catholic employees in a hospital, maybe perhaps even a poor soul sweeping the floors, should not have their benefits dictated based on their employer’s religious beliefs. In the end it’s really as simple as that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top