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

[CMatt25]

An exemption with criteria that most Catholic Churches couldn’t meet.
A “religious employer” is defined in the rule as an organization that meets all four of the following criteria: (1) the organization’s purpose is the inculcation of religious values (Catholic food banks are out); (2) the organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic universities are out); (3) the organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic hospitals are out); and (4) the organization is a nonprofit that is a house of worship or religious order. Given that houses of worship and religious orders exist with a mission to serve the least amongst us regardless of their faith, that means requirement (3) is not met, so everyone is out

The exemption is in place for a purpose. To provide an exemption for actual churches/houses of worship. So you are too narrowly interpreting I’d say if you don’t think a Catholic church/house of worship can be exempted. A primary purpose of them, not hospitals, food banks, and the like, but of the church/house of worship, is inculcation and the sharing and spreading of tenets. They primarily hire Catholics. Primarily being the keyword there. So I think you’re safe.

 

[JimG]

The exemption is so limited that an organization of Catholic nuns serving the inner city poor would have to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization in their health insurance coverage.

It is simply an outrage and an assault on religious liberty. No other administration has assaulted religious liberty in such an outrageous fashion.

It is Obama’s equivalent to Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy, making himself the supreme head of the Church in England. The president has determined himself to be the head of the American Church–any church in America–and Kathleen Sebelius is the national archbishop who enforces doctrine.

 

[CMatt25]

Regarding laws and religion, the government’s laws are supposed to protect it’s vital interests. So no, if something like murder is part of a religion, the government sees an interest in protecting the lives of it’s people. Minimum wage, the government sees a vital interest in helping people to not live in poverty (and then have to have our taxpayers pay for it.) Until recently, the government has seen that polygamy and gay marriage are not in the best interests of children. These are vital interests.

And while you don’t like it, in this case the government’s law is seen by many in part as protecting the interests of women’s health care irregardless of their faith. And if a Catholic doesn’t wish to use the benefit, then they are not forced to. As Rence has said though we don’t even know if the mandate will stick as is. Knowing Obama and from his past actions, he is always willing to compromise further. So I wouldn’t be surprised if further changes are made. But as with many facets of life, those who see this more in the light of care and those who think it’s a religious infringement are just going to have to agree to disagree I suppose. God bless and peace.

 

[1voice]

The exemption is so limited that an organization of Catholic nuns serving the inner city poor would have to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization in their health insurance coverage.

It is simply an outrage and an assault on religious liberty. No other administration has assaulted religious liberty in such an outrageous fashion.

It is Obama’s equivalent to Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy, making himself the supreme head of the Church in England. The president has determined himself to be the head of the American Church–any church in America–and Kathleen Sebelius is the national archbishop who enforces doctrine.

Judged by his record/actions
It is clear that Obama is anti-Catholic.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The exemption is in place for a purpose. To provide an exemption for actual churches/houses of worship. So you are too narrowly interpreting I’d say if you don’t think a Catholic church/house of worship can be exempted. A primary purpose of them, not hospitals, food banks, and the like, but of the church/house of worship, is inculcation and the sharing and spreading of tenets. They primarily hire Catholics. Primarily being the keyword there. So I think you’re safe.

What you “think” could hardly be less relevant. People will pay fines or go to jail according to what a prosecutor and jury determine at the time. But people a bit more informed than you have demonstrated yourself to be have examined the law and observed that, in fact, even a diocese office would not qualify and that certainly hospitals and charities would not.

The “purpose” of this law was made quite clear by the statements from Planned Parenthood and their various allies. It is not to accommodate Catholic conscience, it is to condemn it as incompatible with secularism. The administration regarded the exception for churches as *its *compromise clearly implying that it preferred no exceptions. This exception is a meaningless political expediency, not some well reasoned distinction.

Now I happen to think that Catholics are selling themselves short by framing this as a religious liberty issue but certainly they are on firm ground there. This latest intrusion of the state into private matters crosses a new line, it is a new low in liberal tyranny.

 

[Lochias]

And wasn’t it you who posted the United Methodists, Presbyterians USA, Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ are among those who don’t have a problem with it and thus I would gather don’t see it as a religious liberty issue since they’re all religions too?

Are you saying, then, that Catholicism and the other religions who DO oppose the mandate aren’t religions after all? Because otherwise, yes, it is indeed an issue of religious liberty, among other things.

 

[CMatt25]

What you “think” could hardly be less relevant.

No less relevant than someone else “thinking” they know that a house of worship won’t be exempt.

 

[JimG]

Judged by his record/actions
It is clear that Obama is anti-Catholic.

Yes, but I think that is mainly because Catholic institutions pose the biggest block to his secularist agenda at this time. If he is re-elected, there is nothing to prevent HHS from deciding that abortion should also be included in mandatory coverage. HHS could even decide that all insurance plans must pay for assisted suicide in states where it is legal. He won’t do that until he can find a poll in his favor, though. But once power of this sort is given over to the executive branch, no one’s liberties are safe.

 

[Lochias]

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, sir, is complete and utter malarkey, and I’m relatively certain you realize that. Deliberate obtuseness does not become you, not at all.

Practicing one’s Catholic faith includes not endorsing the use of medicines and other materials that could be used to take a baby’s life.

 

[1voice]

The exemption is so limited that an organization of Catholic nuns serving the inner city poor would have to pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization in their health insurance coverage.

It is simply an outrage and an assault on religious liberty. No other administration has assaulted religious liberty in such an outrageous fashion.

It is Obama’s equivalent to Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy, making himself the supreme head of the Church in England. The president has determined himself to be the head of the American Church–any church in America–and Kathleen Sebelius is the national archbishop who enforces doctrine.

It would require verification but I heard yesterday that a Catholic organization that rescues girls who are Kidnapped into prostitution … and has received funds from every Presidential Administration since its founding … was denied funds from the Obama Admin. The specific reason given was that the organization would not accept the Govt rules related to abortion and contraception.

 

[CMatt25]

Are you saying, then, that Catholicism and the other religions who DO oppose the mandate aren’t religions after all? Because otherwise, yes, it is indeed an issue of religious liberty, among other things.

No I’m saying obviously not all religions agree it is. So it’s obviously not as clear as most here “think” it is. I watched a discussion tonight where a case was laid out that it is not a Constitutional matter. People differ on their opinions.

 

[Lochias]

No less relevant than someone else “thinking” they know that a house of worship won’t be exempt.

I’m guessing you aren’t Catholic, or you might understand that we are in a much better position to know what churches and organizations will and won’t be exempt, by the letter of the law, than you are. If you ARE Catholic, you are sadly and painfully misinformed.

 

[Lochias]

No I’m saying obviously not all religions agree it is. So it’s obviously not as clear as most here “think” it is. I watched a discussion tonight where a case was laid out that it is not a Constitutional matter. People differ on their opinions.

I watched a cartoon the other day in which a sentient sponge lives on the bottom of the sea in a giant pineapple; that doesn’t mean it’s true. Cases can be laid out until doomsday, but facts are facts. It doesn’t take a magnifying glass to see that the new law tramples all over the religious freedoms of Catholics and others. Again, you are being willfully obtuse.

 

[Incomplete]

And while you don’t like it, in this case the government’s law is seen by many in part as protecting the interests of women’s health care irregardless of their faith. And if a Catholic doesn’t wish to use the benefit, then they are not forced to. As Rence has said though we don’t even know if the mandate will stick as is. Knowing Obama and from his past actions, he is always willing to compromise further. So I wouldn’t be surprised if further changes are made. But as with many facets of life, those who see this more in the light of care and those who think it’s a religious infringement are just going to have to agree to disagree I suppose. God bless and peace.

But this is not protecting women’s health.

While I am not forced to use the benefit, Catholic employers are forced to provide what they consider a grave evil. Without the mandate, people who want contraceptives are forced to…what? To pay for it themselves, or go to one of the places where they can get it for free? Or not have sex? Or use something cheaper than the birth control pill? All of these are options without the mandate. As has been quoted over and over, women are having access to contraception without requiring those who find it a grave evil to actually provide it to them.

 

[JimG]

It would require verification but I heard yesterday that a Catholic organization that rescues girls who are Kidnapped into prostitution … and has received funds from every Presidential Administration since its founding … was denied funds from the Obama Admin. The specific reason given was that the organization would not accept the Govt rules related to abortion and contraception.

Yes, the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services work with refugees helped free many from virtual sex slavery. But the ACLU and perhaps other groups objected to renewing their grant because the Catholic refugee service did not offer “the full range of reproductive services.” That is, it doesn’t provide contraception and abortion. With this administration, no matter how much good a group may do, it’s just not acceptable if it doesn’t provide such “reproductive services.” Or should I say, non-reproductive services.

 

[Lochias]

But this is not protecting women’s health.

While I am not forced to use the benefit, Catholic employers are forced to provide what they consider a grave evil. Without the mandate, people who want contraceptives are forced to…what? To pay for it themselves, or go to one of the places where they can get it for free? Or not have sex? Or use something cheaper than the birth control pill? All of these are options without the mandate. As has been quoted over and over, women are having access to contraception without requiring those who find it a grave evil to actually provide it to them.

Indeed.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Judged by his record/actions
It is clear that Obama is anti-Catholic.

Yes, but I think that is mainly because Catholic institutions pose the biggest block to his secularist agenda at this time. If he is re-elected, there is nothing to prevent HHS from deciding that abortion should also be included in mandatory coverage. HHS could even decide that all insurance plans must pay for assisted suicide in states where it is legal. He won’t do that until he can find a poll in his favor, though. But once power of this sort is given over to the executive branch, no one’s liberties are safe.

I am praying that this most recent display of arrogance has finally awakened the sleeping giant that will bring his downfall.
The Catholic vote is large enough to deny him the next election… Just as it gave him the last one.

 

[JimG]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Judged by his record/actions
It is clear that Obama is anti-Catholic.

I am praying that this most recent display of arrogance has finally awakened the sleeping giant that will bring his downfall.
The Catholic vote is large enough to deny him the next election… Just as it gave him the last one.

Yes, we must pray and act. Because even a giant is useless if it is sleeping.

 

[CMatt25]

I’m guessing you aren’t Catholic, or you might understand that we are in a much better position to know what churches and organizations will and won’t be exempt, by the letter of the law, than you are. If you ARE Catholic, you are sadly and painfully misinformed.

I know a lot of conservatives here seem to think of themselves as Constitutional scholars and that their interpretation is right. But being Catholic doesn’t make one any more of a Constitutional scholar or interpreter of the letter of the law than say someone who is a member of one of those religions who disagrees with your interpretation that this infringes upon religious liberty. Nor more than someone who disagrees with your opinion that houses of worship, including Catholic houses of worship, won’t be exempt.

 

[CMatt25]

Didn’t someone say around 90% of the bishops have come out on this. Does anyone have the list of the other 10%?