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

[Incomplete]

Hi - First time poster here. I’m wondering what would be the difference if the Jehovah’s Witnesses ran hospitals and refused to cover their employees for blood transfusions or use of products like antibiotics which might use blood components or organ transplants because it was against their religious beliefs? Not everyone who works for a Catholic organization is Catholic. And even if they are, isn’t it a privacy matter? I don’t see how including the option in a health plan violates anyone’s religious beliefs. It’s more like forcing beliefs on people who may not agree.

No, we’re not forcing people not to use contraception. We are refusing to pay for their contraceptive use. That’s the difference. You might note the oft-repeated statistics on how many Catholics use contraception. That is proof that we aren’t forcing beliefs on anybody.

If the Jehovah’s Witnesses ran a hospital, I would respect their right to not provide what they consider morally evil. I also have a right not to go to that hospital, or to work for them.

Nobody has to work for a Catholic hospital or university or any other Catholic institution. If they accept employment, they can use contraception as well. They just shouldn’t expect the Church to give them insurance for it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Personally, God always trumps anything else! But even Thomas Jefferson would limit “pursuit of happiness”, I think. Obviously we can’t just pursue happiness at all costs. If we could, no law could stand because it could violate somebody else’s happiness.

Well, sure, and he was seeking to be eloquent and motivational, not to lay down a finely detailed definition.

My point is simply that there is no reason, beyond mere prudence, that the Church should bow to any secular authority, nor should any of us, for that matter, allow ourselves to become instruments of evil merely to comply with the law.

She didn’t define “law of the land”, so what I was trying to point out to her is that the contraception mandate violates law as it stands. When a President or HHS Secretary can change the constitution that easily, it’s rather scary to me.

That’s an arguable point, I agree. But ultimately the law’s constitutionality will be decided by the Supreme Court. We hope and pray that they make the right decision and strike down the law, in it’s entirety, but we cannot assume that it will.

Remember, the early Church thrived under a pagan Roman empire. The “law of the land” at that time was that you must worship the emperor.

 

[pnewton]

But our religous rights are not being violated. Everyone can still practice their faith. In the case of Catholics, they can practice by not using the benefits even if they have to pay towards them.

That is only one part of Catholic moral teaching. The part of practicing the Catholic faith that is being violated is the part about not materially cooperating with evil by pay for the mortal sinfulness of others. It is similar to an employer not want to own pornography, but also not to be made by the government to buy pornography for employess.

It is no argument to say that employees are free to read, or not read, pornography.

 

[KenKelly]

No, we’re not forcing people not to use contraception. We are refusing to pay for their contraceptive use. That’s the difference. You might not the oft-repeated statistics on how many Catholics use contraception. That is proof that we aren’t forcing beliefs on anybody.

If the Jehovah’s Witnesses ran a hospital, I would respect their right to not provide what they consider morally evil. I also have a right not to go to that hospital, or to work for them.

Nobody has to work for a Catholic hospital or university or any other Catholic institution. If they accept employment, they can use contraception as well. They just shouldn’t expect the Church to give them insurance for it.

That’s a valid point.

 

[Incomplete]

Well, sure, and he was seeking to be eloquent and motivational, not to lay down a finely detailed definition.

My point is simply that there is no reason, beyond mere prudence, that the Church should bow to any secular authority, nor should any of us, for that matter, allow ourselves to become instruments of evil merely to comply with the law.

That’s an arguable point, I agree. But ultimately the law’s constitutionality will be decided by the Supreme Court. We hope and pray that they make the right decision and strike down the law, in it’s entirety, but we cannot assume that it will.

Remember, the early Church thrived under a pagan Roman empire. The “law of the land” at that time was that you must worship the emperor.

Yes, I agree with all of this. But if you’re coming from a secular perspective, like I think that poster was, it’s good to point out that Obamacare isn’t necessarily the “law of the land.” You’re right about the supreme court, but personally, it seems so clear to me that I think we should have even a lot of atheists on our side.

 

[LisaA]

But our religous rights are not being violated. Everyone can still practice their faith. In the case of Catholics, they can practice by not using the benefits even if they have to pay towards them. Catholic employees already pay if such benefits are in their employer health care coverage now with co pays, deductibles, for instance going toward the cost of providing coverage. I understand a big thing is you don’t want Catholic affilliated employers such as hospitals to be mandated. But there are already all sorts of mandates which someone might not like but nevertheless must follow to live in a democracy of plural beliefs under some sort of rule of law for the land. For instance as Rence pointed out, taxes. Or if the Church is going to hold an abortion protest for instance, there are civil laws that must be followed as to how to go about it. You just can’t for instance stand out on a public street and hold up traffic. Or an abortion protester of another faith can not blow up an abortion clinic or murder an abortion provider under the guise of religious liberty, can they? Of course not. There are rules to be followed and laws to be obeyed living in society.

If you don’t want Catholic employers to pay for the mandated benefits, then it seems to me to be consistent you should also advocate Catholic employees who have such coverage now, to not pay their copays and deductibles, to drop their healthcare and go without caring for their health. But not caring for the sick isn’t exactly the moral thing to do, is it?

And see you make our point. We don’t have blacks drinking at separate fountains or otherwise segregated because other people cared about someone other than themselves.

Peace.

1. Yes our religious rights are being violated by requiring Catholic organizations to provide a product that it considers immoral if not evil. How is that NOT a violation of religious rights?
   What if a law were enacted requiring all restaurants, even those owned by Muslims, to offer pork products and alcohol? Under your theory that’s not a violation of religious liberty because we aren’t stopping them from praying five times a day and they don’t have to eat or use the products. I don’t think you understand the term religious liberty.

It is not a violation of our rights that such products are available and I think you are mistaking the reality for this theory. We can’t object that secular organizations provide this product or service because we don’t believe in it. However we can object if WE are required by law to provide a product or service that is against our faith. In the case of the HHS mandate, we are not simply innocent bystanders but PARTICIPANTS in the evil. THAT is the difference. Do you understand that you are trying to compare apples and oranges?

1. It’s not a matter that Catholics “don’t like” the mandate. It requires a specific violation of our teaching. I don’t like paying taxes, you are right. But it is not against my faith. Another apples and oranges comparison.
2. The old abortion doctor shooting as religious liberty is a canard. Our faith does not require us to shoot abortion providers does it? We cannot perform abortions or participate but respecting the law and not stopping them by force is not against our faith.
3. Again there is a difference between individual Catholics who violate their faith’s teachings and requiring a Catholic institution to be complicit in evil. You can’t seem to separate the two concepts. It has nothing to do with individual choices but requiring the Church to participate in an intrinsic evil.

Lisa

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, I agree with all of this. But if you’re coming from a secular perspective, like I think that poster was, it’s good to point out that Obamacare isn’t necessarily the “law of the land.” You’re right about the supreme court, but personally, it seems so clear to me that I think we should have even a lot of atheists on our side.

While we should be gracious to non-Catholics and even to atheists, we should not bend our morals to them.

It is interesting, though, how this issue has cut across religious affiliation. According to the survey presented earlier, about half of Catholics (probably Obama supporters) are, for the moment at least, quite comfortable with the HHS mandate. On the other hand, there are a lot of non-Catholics, including some atheists, who recognize the line that government has crossed here.

 

[Incomplete]

While we should be gracious to non-Catholics and even to atheists, we should not bend our morals to them.

It is interesting, though, how this issue has cut across religious affiliation. According to the survey presented earlier, about half of Catholics (probably Obama supporters) are, for the moment at least, quite comfortable with the HHS mandate. On the other hand, there are a lot of non-Catholics, including some atheists, who recognize the line that government has crossed here.

I totally agree with you on this. And I’ve noticed that irony myself.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Southern Baptist leader: If Obama mandate isn’t changed, Christians will go to jail

One of the most influential evangelical leaders in the United States says Christians should go to jail rather than comply with the Obama administration’s mandate to provide all contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their health care plans.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), told LifeSiteNews.com “we will not comply” with the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ mandate requiring religious institutions to cover abortifacient products such as Plan B, Ella, and the IUD.

“We want the law changed, or else we’re going to write our letters from the Nashville jail, just like Dr. King wrote his from the Birmingham jail,” Dr. Land said.

Dr. Land wrote an op-ed on Tuesday with Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research at ERLC, calling his fellow Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians throughout America to oppose any infringement on the First Amendment.

“The Obama administration has declared war on religion and freedom of conscience,” they wrote. “We consider this callous requirement by the Obama administration to be a clear violation of our nation’s commitment to liberty of conscience and a flagrant violation of our constitutional protection to freedom of religion.”

Dr. Land told LifeSiteNews he hopes Baptist ministers will “preach from the pulpit just how serious and dangerous this initiative by the Obama administration is,” and “encourage their parishioners to contact their congressmen and their senators and the president and let them know how deeply unhappy they are with this decision, and they want…legislation guaranteeing that it won’t happen again.”

“It is now in the providence of God,” Dr. Land said. “Our responsibility is to stand and say, ‘We will not comply with this. We want the law changed, or else we’re going to write our letters from the Nashville jail, just like Dr. King wrote his from the Birmingham jail.’ We will not comply.”

lifesitenews.com/news/southern-baptist-leader-we-will-not-comply-with-hhs-mandate

 

[Incomplete]

If you don’t want Catholic employers to pay for the mandated benefits, then it seems to me to be consistent you should also advocate Catholic employees who have such coverage now, to not pay their copays and deductibles, to drop their healthcare and go without caring for their health. But not caring for the sick isn’t exactly the moral thing to do, is it?

Peace.

It’s not just about paying for the mandated benefits, and there is a difference between Catholic employees who buy it through work and Catholic employers being forced to purchase it. I addressed it as well as I can in post 1059, when I answered your question to this.

 

[_Abyssinia]

While we should be gracious to non-Catholics and even to atheists, we should not bend our morals to them.

It is interesting, though, how this issue has cut across religious affiliation. According to the survey presented earlier, about half of Catholics (probably Obama supporters) are, for the moment at least, quite comfortable with the HHS mandate. On the other hand, there are a lot of non-Catholics, including some atheists, who recognize the line that government has crossed here.

Two polls were done that polled opinion on the HHS mandate, one was by Public Policy Polling which was sponsored by Planned Parenthood, claimed 53% of Catholic women and 63% of women agree with the HHS mandate. Considering the sponsor of the poll, I do not think the poll is credible. The other poll was by Public Religion Research which claimed 52% of Catholics oppose the mandate, another poll by PRR indicated that Romney would win Colorado Republican Caucus, Rick Santorum won. Neither poll asked a question regarding religious liberty.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Two polls were done that polled opinion on the HHS mandate, one was by Public Policy Polling which was sponsored by Planned Parenthood, claimed 53% of Catholic women and 63% of women agree with the HHS mandate. Considering the sponsor of the poll, I do not think the poll is credible. The other poll was by Public Religion Research which claimed 52% of Catholics oppose the mandate, another poll by PRR indicated that Romney would win Colorado Republican Caucus, Rick Santorum won. Neither poll asked a question regarding religious liberty.

From an election perspective, the crucial question is how many Catholics who voted for Obama are going to change their mind because of this new policy? Matt and Rence illustrate those who are all too happy to overlook this.

In a real sense, it really doesn’t matter what that number is now. It only matters what it is on election day. Between now and then we need to change minds. Maybe Matt and Rence are hopelessly in love with Obama but there are a lot of folks out there who are just not informed about what has happened already, not to mention what is likely to follow this outrage.

 

[bksumm]

Just want to voice my opposition to the HHS mandate. I resent the heavy hand of the government imposing rules that require Catholic institutions to violate their conscience. This is part of an ongoing culture war that many refuse to believe exists. Choices matter…we, the electorate, have a choice in November. Choose wisely.

 

[LisaA]

From an election perspective, the crucial question is how many Catholics who voted for Obama are going to change their mind because of this new policy? Matt and Rence illustrate those who are all too happy to overlook this.

In a real sense, it really doesn’t matter what that number is now. It only matters what it is on election day. Between now and then we need to change minds. Maybe Matt and Rence are hopelessly in love with Obama but there are a lot of folks out there who are just not informed about what has happened already, not to mention what is likely to follow this outrage.

You’re right this is a crucial question but just from my experience with fellow Catholics and other Obama voters, there is a lot of buyer’s remorse. Most were ‘in love’ with Obama and didn’t listen to him. When I told them about his militant pro abortion philosophy they were shocked. The vast majority of voters are sadly ill informed. They hear a soundbite, they see a bumper sticker, they listen to some dopey rock star or celebrity and vote accordingly.

It is up to us to try to speak the truth.

Lisa

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Numerous pundits have predicted that the requirement —and its narrow exemption for churches — will be a political liability for Obama. But where Shields sees “cataclysmic” fallout, the White House sees something quite different: a chance to widen the reproductive health debate beyond abortion to issues like contraceptives, winning over key demographics of independent voters in the process.

And that could explain why the White House, alongside the Obama campaign, has engaged eagerly on the issues. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in USA Today earlier this week, praising the new provision. The Obama campaign meanwhile hasn’t been shy either, drawing up an infographic praising the new regulation. While there are some signs of a potential compromise for religious groups, the White House has made it pretty clear it plans to stand firm behind the current regulation.

But while Catholic leadership has blasted the new regulation, polls show that a majority of Catholics are actually more supportive of the provision than the rest of the country. A poll out Tuesday from the Public Religion Research Institute finds 52 percent of Catholic voters agreed with the statement, “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” That’s pretty much in line with overall support for the provision, which hovers at 55 percent - likely because Catholics use contraceptives at rates similar to the rest of Americans.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-white-house-sees-political-opportunity-in-the-contraception-battle/2012/02/07/gIQAZ9hryQ_blog.html

 

[Rence]

From an election perspective, the crucial question is how many Catholics who voted for Obama are going to change their mind because of this new policy? Matt and Rence illustrate those who are all too happy to overlook this.

In a real sense, it really doesn’t matter what that number is now. It only matters what it is on election day. Between now and then we need to change minds. Maybe Matt and Rence are hopelessly in love with Obama but there are a lot of folks out there who are just not informed about what has happened already, not to mention what is likely to follow this outrage.

I can’t speak for Matt, but I haven’t decided at all in any way who will get my vote yet. It’s a little early for that.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You’re right this is a crucial question but just from my experience with fellow Catholics and other Obama voters, there is a lot of buyer’s remorse. Most were ‘in love’ with Obama and didn’t listen to him. When I told them about his militant pro abortion philosophy they were shocked. The vast majority of voters are sadly ill informed. They hear a soundbite, they see a bumper sticker, they listen to some dopey rock star or celebrity and vote accordingly. It is up to us to try to speak the truth.

That’s exactly right. That is the opportunity for us. And all it require is for us, as you say, to speak the truth to those who have not listened to what Obama is saying or watched what he is doing.

 

[zab]

Cardinal Wuerl: The Issue Is Religious Freedom
video.foxnews.com/v/1441334477001/

 

[Ridgerunner]

Southern Baptist leader: If Obama mandate isn’t changed, Christians will go to jail

lifesitenews.com/news/southern-baptist-leader-we-will-not-comply-with-hhs-mandate

Good for Dr. Land. I agree with a previous poster that some protestant sects are wishy-washy morally, but not all are.

Where I live, most people are Southern Baptist. Next most numerous is Assemblies of God. I don’t know a single person from either of them who does not think Obama is trying to suppress religious freedom with this. Might be a few, but they sure aren’t being vocal.

Thing is, though, Obama has undoubtedly counted noses and has written obedient Catholics, Southern Baptists and AGs off a long time ago. Let’s hope he miscalculated.

 

[Tsuwano]

From an election perspective, the crucial question is how many Catholics who voted for Obama are going to change their mind because of this new policy? Matt and Rence illustrate those who are all too happy to overlook this.

In a real sense, it really doesn’t matter what that number is now. It only matters what it is on election day. Between now and then we need to change minds. Maybe Matt and Rence are hopelessly in love with Obama but there are a lot of folks out there who are just not informed about what has happened already, not to mention what is likely to follow this outrage.

To be honest, I think you’ll find more than you expect. Many Catholics who supported Obama in 2008 did so because John McCain made an abominable choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate and tracked too far to the right. If the Republican candidates for President and Vice President are sound and stay in the center of the electorate, you’ll discover a lot of Catholics, who may have voted a bit left than usual in 2008, straying back towards the middle and supporting the Republicans precisely because of the altercation between the Obama Administration and the Bishops. I think the Administration has underestimated the power and influence of the Catholic Bishops and may regret its unwillingness to dialog and reach an agreement with them on health care.