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.
Tbrightson said:
I believe respect is EARNED, same with reverence. I have found that our Bishops have done precious little earning. The child abuse scandal for starters, the embrace of the marxist “social justice” agenda. Everytime stinkin time I have a discussion with a anti-Christian/Catholic I have that child abuse scandal thrown at me. Yes, I have been very disappointed by our bishops. Yes I have been betrayed - by the Bishops. Their embrace of Obamacare is yet another betrayel.

“Not all of us are as wise” You would think these so highly educated men would have seen this…but no they couldnt, But us stupid lay people could see this coming from miles away.

Just sick and tired of it.
Click to expand...
“Respect is earned.” Why does that sound so familiar. :rolleyes:
 
I think that you are missing a big point. The Federal money is accepted for the good of the people (e.g. medicare and medicaid). Not all medical institutions are willing to accept medicare and medicaid because of the major inconvenience and possible loss of revenues. This is a situation where distribution of federal money is really for the convenience of the distributor and not of the recipient. The federal system would have major problems if the poor and the elderly would miss access the Catholic medical institutions because the government is not paying medicare or medicaid anymore.
The other point that you are missing is that the government is making a mandate independently of federal funding.
Finally the government accepts our funding (e.g. taxes) with strings attached, it is called the constitution.
 
The First Amendment should be fought for regardless of the Public Funding issue. We should induce the Gov’t to be more Christianity friendly *as it was designed in the **first *place.

That aside* -* yes - currently speaking in terms of the current state of affairs of the Government meddling due to the Government ‘Camel’s nose in the tent’ mechanism,’ we should indeed divest ourselves of Federal funding. We would be all the more successful and profitable in the long run. However the Gov’t as it stands now, would still attack Catholics via the current Health Care Bill Fiasco.
 
I’m sorry, but this whole “He who pays the piper calls the tune” argument is not convincing to me.

First, the HHS mandate has nothing whatsoever to do with allocation of federal funds. The mandate applies to everyone regardless of whether they are tax exempt (or not) or whether they receive federal funds (or not). My Catholic friend with his own business who pays taxes and receives not a dime from the government is still forced under this mandate to violate his conscience and offer these “benefits” to his employees while he pays the bill.

So anyone who is building their argument upon the premise that the Church “deserves” this because She receives federal and/or state monies is just tossing out a red herring. The Church could forsake tax exempt status and refuse all outside funds and it wouldn’t change a thing about this mandate.

All this aside, I strongly object to the notion that the Church does not have a right to the funds it receives. Tax money is not the property of the secular government to do with as they see fit. Tax money is our money. The government gives out grants to organizations who are meeting public needs in a financially responsible way. They do not have the right to take over that organization and dictate its policies simply because they give them such a grant.

Catholic institutions save the government money because they typically operate much more efficiently (imagine that!). I’ve heard the story that, back in the day, a certain archbishop was fighting with the state regarding funds and so, to make his point, he cancelled 1st grade in all of the diocesan Catholic schools for one year (thereby forcing the State to pay for their education). The State quickly learned that it was far cheaper for them to give money to the Catholic school system than to educate all those kids themselves.
 
Teresara said:
Catholic Charities, Catholic Hospitals, and Catholic Colleges accept Federal and State Funding. Operating such institutions while taking government money means accepting at least some regulation on how that money is used.

That being said, it still leaves me with the basic premise of the First Amendment. It’s gets tossed around like a volleyball when needed however, in this case I believe this is the kind of thing our forefathers intended to address. But one can’t have it both ways – you accept govt funding and you have to accept some of their influence.

Am I missing something here? This seems fairly straightforward, my personal feelings about the issue’s aside.
Click to expand...
So if someone receives unemployment wages, can the government tell them what they can eat for dinner?
 
JReducation said:
Thank you for your show of respect, reverence and support for the successors of the Apostles. It’s heart warming.

I guess you have never trusted someone and have been betrayed, have you?

Not all of us are as wise. Many of us still believe that human beings are basically good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Our Bishops should be able to discern evil when they encounter it. The naivete regarding the consequences of giving the government total power over our healthcare was startling.

That said, we can’t become a circular firing squad over this. I think the lesson has been learned.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
But even in that decision, I think the grounds were that the woman was officially a “commissioned minister” of the Lutheran Church. An employee of a hospital is no such thing.
Click to expand...
My point was that SCOTUS rejected the administration’s authority over a religious situation. I understand there are differences in the case.7
 
And just because I’m really fired up about this… 😛

I am quite tired of the sentiment that the government is somehow doing the Church a favor by “allowing” them to perform all these social services. The Church is out there, in the trenches, serving the poorest of the poor and helping those in need and now the Church gets punished simply because the government has graciously bestowed public funds to help the Church do just that and we refuse to violate our conscience?

I’m normally a pretty mellow guy, but this really gets me going. :o
 
Ridgerunner said:
Obama will reverse it if he thinks it will improve his re-election chances. Otherwise, he won’t.

But it actually makes no difference whether he does or not, as far as the outcome is concerned. The Democrat-controlled congress gave the executive total power to regulate the healthcare and insurance industries. Even if he reversed himself on this, he could reinstate it and institute even worse if he’s re-elected, and almost certainly will do so. We haven’t seen anything yet. In 2013, he could require that every form of abortion has to be paid for by insurance and that every hospital provide it. He could require that every hospital provide “euthanasia services”, and there wouldn’t be a thing anybody could do about it in the absence of a Republican supermajority in congress.

I wouldn’t even trust a Repub president with this kind of power. With Obama in office, it’s a truly horrifying prospect.
Click to expand...
And the USCCB supported him.
 
Teelynn said:
Couldn’t have said it better. If he is re-elected he will go hog wild. He will have permanently “transformed America” by the end of his next term. A devastating proposition.
Click to expand...
Transformed is the wrong word. Try destroyed.
 
mary_bobo said:
If Catholics don’t care about this issue perhaps they might consider what else this administration and it’s minions might do next. What other traditions and things of value to the majority of Americans might they do away with. If nothing else this is the camel’s nose under the tent.
Click to expand...
This mandate shreds the First Amendment into ribbons. If the Government can, by setting precedent, destroy separation of Church and state, then the government can force Churches to bless homosexual marriage, for example, or not discriminate against who can or cannot receive Communion. If all it takes is an argument that the policy “strikes a balance”, then public policy can dictate whatever it chooses.

Don’t be fooled. This administration has its marching orders. The Bishops have finally seen the life of the Church in America flash before their eyes. I don’t care how late they’ve come to their senses - the good news is, they have.
 
tm30 said:
So if someone receives unemployment wages, can the government tell them what they can eat for dinner?
Click to expand...
Not only tell them what to eat for dinner, but you have to eat all they tell you to - abortion drug, sterilization, and contraception. If you don’t eat all they tell you to, you pay them fine or go to jail.
 
Teresara said:
That being said, it still leaves me with the basic premise of the First Amendment. It’s gets tossed around like a volleyball when needed however, in this case I believe this is the kind of thing our forefathers intended to address. But one can’t have it both ways – you accept govt funding and you have to accept some of their influence.
Click to expand...
I think there are two separate issues. Yes, when the government ‘gives’ funds you have to follow their rules and should as that is part of gratitude when receiving a gift. In the case of the mandated insurance the government is not giving anyone anything. It is mandating that employers provide health insurance to their employees with specified benefits. There is no obligation out of gratitude to follow the law. So the relevant issues are whether the requirements of the law are justified or the law violates some fundamental freedom.

I agree with your statement about influence only in so far as promoting the powerful modern nation state, as has been done, and its many mandates necessarily means you are going to be subject to its powers yourself. If you accept that the government has a right to all wealth and to distribute it according to its prerogatives then you will be under its influence.
 
The only reliable way to reverse it is to “throw the bums out” as the saying goes.

You can’t allow an administration that actually thinks they have the right to do something like this stay in power. It is reprehensible.

Relying on the Legislature to check them is foolish since the people backing this monstrosity control half the Legislature in the first place.

Relying on the Courts to check them is foolish since the Administration appoints judges to the Courts.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. People were warned when Obamacare was rammed through the Congress that giving the government power and then counting on them not to abuse it was folly. All the talk of “waivers” was madness out the outset because the power to grant a waiver implies the power to choose not to grant a waiver and still get away with it. Consenting to this legal infrastructure was an act that was either breathtakingly naive or shockingly diabolical.

The course is clear. Even if the current Supreme Court does strike down this insanity or the Administration back-pedals the threat is all too real, just waiting for a less-vigilant time. Do not forget, but agitate, reiterate, and stay active. When the November comes around you go down to your polling place and you drive a stake into the heart of the monster that this regime has become.

And send a clear message to the next Administration that they have been elected to take us in the opposite direction with regards to the over-reach of the government, not just to have their own turn at the wheel engaging in abuse and usurpation.
  • Marty Lund
 
This administration is unbelievably sly and tricky. They do all they can to confuse the public, they walk extra thousand miles to give out false information. Just unbelievable. They lie right and left. It is an eye opener.
 
garysibio said:
And the USCCB supported him.
Click to expand...
Very sadly, true. But I’ll say again what I have said before in other contexts. One should never identify USCCB with “the bishops”. It’s a largely lay-run organization over which the bishops have a supposedly governing voice, but which basically runs itself. In my opinion, it’s almost a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, and has been for a long time.

Don’t judge your bishop by what USCCB does.
 
Teresara said:
Catholic Charities, Catholic Hospitals, and Catholic Colleges accept Federal and State Funding. Operating such institutions while taking government money means accepting at least some regulation on how that money is used.

That being said, it still leaves me with the basic premise of the First Amendment. It’s gets tossed around like a volleyball when needed however, in this case I believe this is the kind of thing our forefathers intended to address. But one can’t have it both ways – you accept govt funding and you have to accept some of their influence.

Am I missing something here? This seems fairly straightforward, my personal feelings about the issue’s aside.
Click to expand...
The constitution does not directly address the matter of government funding/control of private institutions, but it does address something similar and if I may make a comparison to another right we enjoy in the U.S. it might help to shed some light.

In the U.S. We have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The reason for that right is expressed in the preceding phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary…”.
These two things work in balance. Yes the government has the right to “regulate” but under no circumstances can they remove the right to keep and bear arms.

Likewise, if the government sees that it is to it’s advantage to partner (financially) with a private, faith based organization in some matter that is fine. However, that such partnership MUST keep in mind the freedom and religious rights of the private faith based organization that it chooses to partner with.
In other words, it is not the religious institution that must bend to the government’s will, rather the government is the one that must bend in such cases, or it must choose to cut it’s partnership with the faith based group and assume the full responsibility (and costs) for whatever services the group previously supplied.

The thing to remember though is that in the case of Obama Care, it doesn’t matter if government money is involved or not…Even if the Church told the Government to keep their money, the problem would not go away.
So arguments that attempt to tie government funding to this type of government regulation simply do not hit the mark.

Peace
James
 
JackQ said:
It depends on how strongly Obama feels about it. If he vetoes the legislation, we’ll need 2/3 in both houses to override. The House will be no problem, but the Senate is dicey. Honestly, I have to think that the Democrats don’t want to alienate such a large number of Catholics, and they may be discussing with Obama right now how they can get out of this. To save face, he’ll have to make it look like he’s giving it up in exchange for something else.

It doesn’t matter to me. Obama has permanently alienated me with this. I won’t vote for him even if the Republicans run a monkey (and it looks like they’ve given that serious consideration this primary season).
Click to expand...
Ha! Your last sentence made me laugh. Thanks, I needed it. 🙂
 
garysibio said:
My point was that SCOTUS rejected the administration’s authority over a religious situation.
Click to expand...
I understand that but the differences in the cases seem to be so great, imo, that I really do fail to see any connection between the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top