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

[NewEnglandPriest]

And the USCCB supported him.

Source?

 

[ajaxbogs]

There’s also an amendment to the policy that should please everyone:

cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/01/free.birth.control/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The new policy is important because it also:

Therefore those who want birth control and sterilization can use those benefits, and those who don’t, don’t have to use those benefits. However, everyone can use all the other benefits. Which should make everyone happy because it’s a fair compromise

BEWARE OF COMPROMISE!! (Somewhat devoted) Catholics who voted for Obama are in bed with a python. He’ll give the “compromise” to get re-elected & may even offer an “apology”. All the clergy & laity who voted for him will feel warm & fuzzy because they can stick w/ their (now demonic) political tradition (i.e.the Democrat Party).

Can you imagine the attack on the Church with a 2nd term & NO re-election looming over the python’s head? He’ll try to squeeze the life out of our church!

Demonstrate COURAGE. Vote PRO-LIFE!

 

[InLight247]

No compromise, the immoral law should be totally overturned.

Can you imagine the attack on the Church with a 2nd term & NO re-election looming over the python’s head? He’ll try to squeeze the life out of our church!

Cannot give in!! Keep in mind the Catholic Church is the number one enemy of Satan.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Many of us still believe that human beings are basically good.

Please explain to us how those who hold this belief thought that mandating health care was necessary or good? (Or did you mean to say “Many of us still believe that bigger government is basically good.”)

While I am not so naive as to think that people are naturally generous to strangers, I do think that the bishops should be more focused on teaching people to be charitable and less focused on partnering with secular government to make people so.

 

[formerlysure]

Don’t be fooled by the meaningless exclusionary clause for churches. It’s deliberately structured to give the President a way to deflect criticism with a quick soundbite which, like most of his arguments, totally lacks substance. He’s counting on most people not paying attention - the same strategy he used to get elected to begin with.

Catholic colleges, universities, hospitals, nursing facilities - will all be excluded as they are not in and of themselves “churches”. They will be held to whatever standard the administration puts in place. In other words, none of the Catholic entities which actually employ a lot of people will be able to use this church exclusion. It’s a direct hit at the Catholic psyche, tradition, belief and authority over it’s resources, teaching and behavior. It’s an attack on non-Catholics as well, setting a precedent for the President to be the arbitor of how we spend our resources, what we purchase, and what moral standards we set for ourselves.

And while he’s mandating we pay for what we consider to be murder on one hand, he’s also working at forcing the church to ordain women, planning an attack on the Church for discriminatory hiring practices because priests are men in our faith. The attacks are being very selectively levelled at the Catholic church, and also impacting Orthodox Christian churches.

This makes as much sense as suing a synagogue for only considering Jews for the job of Rabbi. Why only jews? Isn’t that descrimination based on religion? How about requiring that the employees at the NAACP not be disproportionately black…let’s require them to have a few white, asian and mexican folks in top, public, high paying roles for “balance”. WHY only Jewish Rabbi’s? Because being a Rabbi and not being Jewish would be absolutely rediculous. How about we sue the NFL, NBA and MLBA while we’re at it for being disproportionately male in their rosters? Again, because it’s REDICULOUS. It’s also rediculous to ask Catholics to pay for abortions and birth control and to bring in female priests, in direct contradiction to our cannon law and doctrine and tradition and collective conciousness as a religion.

What makes more sense is to require that insurance cover the rest of the body for real needs like dental fillings, hearing aids and contact lenses. Why is it ok for insurance to basically excluse our heads - which I would argue are pretty crucial to our overall health - but mandate coverage of optional things like birth control and sexual disease counseling?

I believe the church is due for some big changes - I truly do. Even so, I don’t think I’ll ever turn to a non-Catholic government official in one country to make the decision for our international faith community. Just as I don’t want the pope dictating American law. Separation of church and state, for the protection of both!

 

[garysibio]

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

I would not be surprised if a crisis appeared in October which just might cause him to have to declare martial law and “postpone” the elections until it’s over. A crisis like Obama trailing in the polls.

 

[garysibio]

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.

If this is true then the bishops are responsible for letting this situation continue.

 

[garysibio]

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.

Just that SCOTUS doesn’t always do what Obama wants. That’s all, folks.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Poll: Americans support contraception coverage, divided over religious exemptions

A majority of Americans - including Catholics - believe that employers should be required to provide employee health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost, according to a new survey.

But the research by the Public Religion Polling Institute shows that when it comes to providing religious exemptions from free contraceptive coverage – something the White House is sharply criticized for failing to do – the public is much more divided.

…

On Monday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued “Six Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate.” Included on the list was, “Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate.”

The survey released today, however, paints a more nuanced picture.

In fact, according to the PRRI poll, Catholics are more likely than Americans in general (52 to 49 percent) to say that religiously affiliated employers should have to provide contraception coverage. Among Catholic voters, though, the number drops to 45 percent support, with 52 percent opposed.

Only about 4-in-10 (41 percent) white Catholics support the contraception mandate for all Catholic institutions, compared to 58 percent who oppose it.

The exemption debate has largely focused on Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies, and nearly half (49 percent) of Americans say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost.

Some 46 percent say they should not have to provide such coverage, which critics say violates religious freedom by forcing institutions to subsidize treatments that violate the tenets of their faith.
…

A majority of Catholics (58 percent) do support the contraception mandate generally. While Catholic Church teaching proscribes the use of artificial birth control to avoid conception, 98 percent of Catholics use contraception.

Young people and the religiously unaffiliated are much more likely to believe all institutions, religious or not, should provide free contraception coverage to their employees, while less than a third (31 percent) of white evangelicals support such a mandate.

The survey of 1,009 adults was conducted Feb. 1-5 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The sample included 219 Catholics and 168 Catholic voters. The margins of error for this sample are +/- 6.5 and 7.5 percentage points, respectively.

religionnews.com/politics/government-and-politics/hhs-story

It is a small sample of Catholics that were polled; I wish they would distinguish when they poll Catholics, the CINO’s and practicing Catholic, hardly any poll ever seems to do this. The USSCB has responded to the 98% of Catholics use contraception claim:

Claim: “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98% of Catholic women, have used contraception.”

Response: This is irrelevant, and it is presented in a misleading way. If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so? But this claim also mangles the data to create a false impression.The study actually says this is true of 98% of “sexually experienced” women.The more relevant statistic is that the drugs and devices subject to this mandate (sterilization, hormonal prescription contraceptives and IUDs) are used by 69% of those women who are “sexually active” and “do not want to become pregnant.” Surely that is a minority of the general public, yet every man and woman who needs health insurance will have to pay for this coverage.The drugs that the mandate’s supporters say will be most advanced by the new rule, because they have the highest co-pays and deductibles now, are powerful but risky injectable and implantable hormonal contraceptives, now used by perhaps 5% of women.The mandate is intended to change women’s reproductive behavior, not only reflect it.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/fact-check-bishops-conference-answers-white-house-claims-about-contraceptio/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz1liv5xQ5t

 

[garysibio]

Source?

Just to clarify the USCCB did oppose anything in Obamacare that was related to abortion but they supported the bill for the most part. Here are a couple of links:

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=527
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=612
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=525

 

[_Abyssinia]

Don’t be fooled by the meaningless exclusionary clause for churches. It’s deliberately structured to give the President a way to deflect criticism with a quick soundbite which, like most of his arguments, totally lacks substance. He’s counting on most people not paying attention - the same strategy he used to get elected to begin with.

Catholic colleges, universities, hospitals, nursing facilities - will all be excluded as they are not in and of themselves “churches”. They will be held to whatever standard the administration puts in place. In other words, none of the Catholic entities which actually employ a lot of people will be able to use this church exclusion. It’s a direct hit at the Catholic psyche, tradition, belief and authority over it’s resources, teaching and behavior. It’s an attack on non-Catholics as well, setting a precedent for the President to be the arbitor of how we spend our resources, what we purchase, and what moral standards we set for ourselves.

And while he’s mandating we pay for what we consider to be murder on one hand, he’s also working at forcing the church to ordain women, planning an attack on the Church for discriminatory hiring practices because priests are men in our faith. The attacks are being very selectively levelled at the Catholic church, and also impacting Orthodox Christian churches.

This makes as much sense as suing a synagogue for only considering Jews for the job of Rabbi. Why only jews? Isn’t that descrimination based on religion? How about requiring that the employees at the NAACP not be disproportionately black…let’s require them to have a few white, asian and mexican folks in top, public, high paying roles for “balance”. WHY only Jewish Rabbi’s? Because being a Rabbi and not being Jewish would be absolutely rediculous. How about we sue the NFL, NBA and MLBA while we’re at it for being disproportionately male in their rosters? Again, because it’s REDICULOUS. It’s also rediculous to ask Catholics to pay for abortions and birth control and to bring in female priests, in direct contradiction to our cannon law and doctrine and tradition and collective conciousness as a religion.

What makes more sense is to require that insurance cover the rest of the body for real needs like dental fillings, hearing aids and contact lenses. Why is it ok for insurance to basically excluse our heads - which I would argue are pretty crucial to our overall health - but mandate coverage of optional things like birth control and sexual disease counseling?

I believe the church is due for some big changes - I truly do. Even so, I don’t think I’ll ever turn to a non-Catholic government official in one country to make the decision for our international faith community. Just as I don’t want the pope dictating American law. Separation of church and state, for the protection of both!

The USSCB is not buying the claim from the Obama admin that Churches are completely exempt:

Claim: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”

Response: This is not entirely true. To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose. Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith. Such churches would be denied an exemption precisely because their service to the common good is so great. More importantly, the vast array of other religious organizations — schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions — will clearly not be exempt.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/fact-check-bishops-conference-answers-white-house-claims-about-contraceptio/

 

[Tbrightson]

And while he’s mandating we pay for what we consider to be murder on one hand, he’s also working at forcing the church to ordain women, planning an attack on the Church for discriminatory hiring practices because priests are men in our faith.

Can you elaborate on this? First I heard of it.

 

[UnusVeritas]

If the HHS mandate were to be reworded so that Catholic insurance companies would have to provide “birth control” for legitimate medical reasons, but not for contraceptive purposes, would this be found acceptable? And could you please cite something too? Thanks.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is a small sample of Catholics that were polled; I wish they would distinguish when they poll Catholics, the CINO’s and practicing Catholic, hardly any poll ever seems to do this. The USSCB has responded to the 98% of Catholics use contraception claim:

For all purposes that are important to this administration, “practicing” means “voting”. The administrating is betting that they won’t lose any votes with this policy.

The question that was not asked is this: are Catholics who use contraceptives and support the mandate willing to support a law that sends bishops to jail for opposing the same?

I think this is where the administration may have miscalculated. But that will only pan out if the bishops walk their talk.

And if bishops demonstrate that they are willing to go to jail over this you might see some change in attitude by Catholics in general on the issue of contraceptives, itself. Stranger things have happened.

 

[johnnykins]

Just that SCOTUS doesn’t always do what Obama wants. That’s all, folks.

I’m not aware that any SCOTUS throughout the history of this country has always done what the President wanted. Not much of a point. In fact, it’s exactly how our system is supposed to work - and apparently is working.

I don’t see how hyperbole, banalities or spin really does anything other than obscure the reality of things. Given the context of your original comment, your final comment above is a “so what.”

 

[Teresara]

Thank you all for replying – honestly this was not to argue – I really was wondering if I was missing some thing. Your thoughts have given me much to research on my own and I appreciate it.

No red herring – just an honest question – I haven’t posted on these boards much and this is a helluva place to put myself out there – but as I was frothing at the mouth saying the govt can’t do this on Sunday, and then after doing some preliminary research I just felt as soon as found out govt funds are used it ended the debate in my mind. But the news is so heavily in favor or against and this issue of funding wasn’t even brought up I knew I was missing something so I had to ask – so thank you for answering. Now I have better questions to research answers on. Much food for thought.

(also I don’t’ understand “mandates” – sigh – ) Great opportunity to learn.

 

[_Abyssinia]

For all purposes that are important to this administration, “practicing” means “voting”. The administrating is betting that they won’t lose any votes with this policy.

The question that was not asked is this: are Catholics who use contraceptives and support the mandate willing to support a law that sends bishops to jail for opposing the same?

I think this is where the administration may have miscalculated. But that will only pan out if the bishops walk their talk.

And if bishops demonstrate that they are willing to go to jail over this you might see some change in attitude by Catholics in general on the issue of contraceptives, itself. Stranger things have happened.

You bring up a good point; the poll did not ask the consequences of the Church rejecting the mandate, which is large fines, maybe even jail. If the poll had asked that question, there could of been a different result with the majority of Catholics saying ‘no’ to the question of ‘employers should be required to provide employee health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost, according to a new survey.’

I think the Obama administration was so arrogant that they thought the HHS mandate could go through without much complaint, maybe from a few Catholics here and there, but not much. I still think they have made big mistake - it is known not all Catholics follow the Church’s teachings when it comes to contraception, but to swing an election it doesn’t take a large percentage of upset Catholics to vote for Obama’s opponent and swing the election.

I hope it does not get as far as Bishops having to demonstrate they are willing to go to jail; the HHS mandate has to be reversed.

 

[johnnykins]

I would not be surprised if a crisis appeared in October which just might cause him to have to declare martial law and “postpone” the elections until it’s over. A crisis like Obama trailing in the polls.

This sort of half-crazed hyperbole really serves the Democrats. Couple it with Newt’s intemperate remarks concerning how he’d handle the judiciary, and one starts to see some substance to the Dem’s arguments that the Republicans have gone off the far right edge. Not good. Certainly not good if you want to defeat the Democrats.

 

[garysibio]

I’m not aware that any SCOTUS throughout the history of this country has always done what the President wanted. Not much of a point. In fact, it’s exactly how our system is supposed to work - and apparently is working.

I don’t see how hyperbole, banalities or spin really does anything other than obscure the reality of things. Given the context of your original comment, your final comment above is a “so what.”

My original comment was in response to someone who said that if the HHS mandate made it to SCOTUS, they would automatically do whatever Obama wanted, especially if he got another appointment on the court. I was just pointing out that the current version of SCOTUS does not automatically do what Obama wants. Remember, it already has an Obama appointee on it, Kagan and she voted against him. Even if a new appointee decided to vote with Obama on everything, the other eight might still oppose him.

There is no guarantee that SCOTUS would automatically uphold the HHS mandate.

Was I really that obtuse???

 

[qui_est_ce]

Can you elaborate on this? First I heard of it.

Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church vs eeoc