Boehner: Feds should back off birth control order

  • Thread starter Thread starter TravisDover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TravisDover

Guest
Found here on Fox News

Speaker of the House John Boehner today said, "“There is obviously a lot of opposition to the announcement by the. Secretary of Health and Human Services, to requiring religious organizations to violate their beliefs in ordering that all insurance policies provide certain contraceptive benefits. I think this mandate violates our Constitution. I think it violates the rights of these religious organizations, and I would hope that the administration would back up and take another look at this.”

Not the toughest words against the mandate, but it’s a great start. I discuss this more at Catholic1.net.

I think this administration is one of the most sneaky, shady, back-room dealing ones in our country’s history. They pass big-time bills and law on the eves of holidays when the citizens are not paying attention, and they, like Nancy Pelosi, tell us “we have to pass it to know what’s in it,” whenever we have questions about a bill. I’m tired of being looked as an idiot by my own government. Nevertheless, I believe that’s what we get when we pay these public servents so much and treat them like royalty.

What’s your opinion? Why do you think Obama would risk political suicide on such a hot-button issue in the middle of his reelection campaign?

–Travis Dover
KofC, Catholic
 
I think he’s made a judgement that it will be better to alienate Catholics than to alienate his fiercely pro-abortion base. He probably also thinks it will be easier to finesse the Catholic vote. He thinks we’re dumb enough to let this pass.

Catholic’s are often accused of being one issue voters, but there is no constitutency more one issue than the “pro-choice” contingent, which would react with extreme vitriol if he backs off of this.
 
JimG said:
I think he’s made a judgement that it will be better to alienate Catholics than to alienate his fiercely pro-abortion base. He probably also thinks it will be easier to finesse the Catholic vote. He thinks we’re dumb enough to let this pass.

Catholic’s are often accused of being one issue voters, but there is no constitutency more one issue than the “pro-choice” contingent, which would react with extreme vitriol if he backs off of this.
Click to expand...
And how many Catholics use birth control anyways?
 
JimG said:
I think he’s made a judgement that it will be better to alienate Catholics than to alienate his fiercely pro-abortion base. He probably also thinks it will be easier to finesse the Catholic vote. He thinks we’re dumb enough to let this pass.

Catholic’s are often accused of being one issue voters, but there is no constitutency more one issue than the “pro-choice” contingent, which would react with extreme vitriol if he backs off of this.
Click to expand...
Standoff: one issue Catholics versus one issue pro-choicers. 🤷
 
I believe Obama entered White House with a mission, a mission to destroy capitalism and Catholicism.

The fact he supports “Occupy Wal Street” and the way he is for entitlements clearly show his intention to paralyze the society and destroy capitalism.

The way he passes Obamacare - against conscience, promote abortion, promote end of life killing, deny senior citizens’ right to seek professional medical treatment, are all against Catholic Church’s belief.

He has a mission to destroy capitalism and Catholicism. He will do whatever he can and when he can.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
And how many Catholics use birth control anyways?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter. The mandate forces Catholic institutions to become non-Catholic by violating Cathoic moral principles. No Catholic institution can do that. It doesn’t matter if every Catholic in the U.S. uses birth control and every Catholic woman has had an abortion. Presumably they know it violates Church teaching.

But the mandate forces Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, Catholic schools, to violate the Catholic principles under which they were founded. It breaks freedom of religion not only for Catholics but for everyone.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Standoff: one issue Catholics versus one issue pro-choicers. 🤷
Click to expand...
My spidey sense has been tingling about this. I have a feeling the Obama admin either reverses its position (the first being a play to its base), or Obamacare is overturned (partially or entirely) before the new rule would be put into play.

If Obama loses the Catholic vote (or a large portion), he loses the election.
 
scipio337 said:
My spidey sense has been tingling about this. I have a feeling the Obama admin either reverses its position (the first being a play to its base), or Obamacare is overturned (partially or entirely) before the new rule would be put into play.

If Obama loses the Catholic vote (or a large portion), he loses the election.
Click to expand...
That is true. Still, I think Obama really believes that most Catholics are dumb enough to vote for him in spite of his war on the Church.
 
JimG said:
That is true. Still, I think Obama really believes that most Catholics are dumb enough to vote for him in spite of his war on the Church.
Click to expand...
That assumption was born out in the last election…😦
 
JimG said:
I think he’s made a judgement that it will be better to alienate Catholics than to alienate his fiercely pro-abortion base. He probably also thinks it will be easier to finesse the Catholic vote. He thinks we’re dumb enough to let this pass.

Catholic’s are often accused of being one issue voters, but there is no constitutency more one issue than the “pro-choice” contingent, which would react with extreme vitriol if he backs off of this.
Click to expand...
I think so, and, sadly, I think the pro-choice vote is far larger in America, when it comes to people who vote, regardless of the strength or prevalence of the belief in the general population. The average pro-lifer that I’ve ever seen or heard of is a radical feminist who thinks themselves educated because they attended a college (but have an attention span suited to soundbytes and Twitter), an atheist or an heretic (or at the very least a dissenter), often an environmentalist, a social liberal, an economic liberal, or a male “fellow-traveler”, in any case all of the above being swallowed whole by, and, in turn, swallowing whole every soundbite of secular culture put forth by MSNBC - and above all else, a rabidly political animal involved in several radical political organizations - NOW, NARAL, ACLU, etc.
He has a mission to destroy capitalism and Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Capitalism does not equal true Catholic does not equal patriotic American, poor interpretations of Rerum Novarum aside. Full disclosure: I am an economic leftist, as one can tell from any of my posts here that touch on economic issues. It angers me, when, all too often, certain Christians or Catholics equate laissez-faire Capitalism after the heart of Ayn Rand (which is actually incompatible with the aforementioned encyclical and Catholicism, and is a thoroughly Calvinist concept) with “true Christianity” with being a “true Patriot”, and everyone who isn’t is either a traitor, a false Christian, a cafeteria Catholic, etc.

Anyways, I think Obama is on a mission to destroy Christianity in general (I would say religion, but he’s been very friendly towards Islamic causes in all spheres and actions, including militarily), and he’s too capitalist - he has some sort of twisted idea of mixing the European-style social market with Ayn Randian laissez-faire capitalism in typical “designed by committee” politician fashion, attempting to anger as few people as possible while angering them all. Such a mix can never work, and is detrimental to all people and all aspects of the system. A full transition to European-style social market is needed. Even laissez-faire capitalism is (slightly, possibly) better than the attempted mix, as the two are designed as systems, not gears which can be picked some from one, some from another and mixed together and work properly as a machine.
 
Khalid said:
I think so, and, sadly, I think the pro-choice vote is far larger in America, when it comes to people who vote, regardless of the strength or prevalence of the belief in the general population. The average pro-lifer that I’ve ever seen or heard of is a radical feminist who thinks themselves educated because they attended a college (but have an attention span suited to soundbytes and Twitter), an atheist or an heretic (or at the very least a dissenter), often an environmentalist, a social liberal, an economic liberal, or a male “fellow-traveler”, in any case all of the above being swallowed whole by, and, in turn, swallowing whole every soundbite of secular culture put forth by MSNBC - and above all else, a rabidly political animal involved in several radical political organizations - NOW, NARAL, ACLU, etc.

Capitalism does not equal true Catholic does not equal patriotic American, poor interpretations of Rerum Novarum aside. Full disclosure: I am an economic leftist, as one can tell from any of my posts here that touch on economic issues. It angers me, when, all too often, certain Christians or Catholics equate laissez-faire Capitalism after the heart of Ayn Rand (which is actually incompatible with the aforementioned encyclical and Catholicism, and is a thoroughly Calvinist concept) with “true Christianity” with being a “true Patriot”, and everyone who isn’t is either a traitor, a false Christian, a cafeteria Catholic, etc.

Anyways, I think Obama is on a mission to destroy Christianity in general (I would say religion, but he’s been very friendly towards Islamic causes in all spheres and actions, including militarily), and he’s too capitalist - he has some sort of twisted idea of mixing the European-style social market with Ayn Randian laissez-faire capitalism in typical “designed by committee” politician fashion, attempting to anger as few people as possible while angering them all. Such a mix can never work, and is detrimental to all people and all aspects of the system. A full transition to European-style social market is needed. Even laissez-faire capitalism is (slightly, possibly) better than the attempted mix, as the two are designed as systems, not gears which can be picked some from one, some from another and mixed together and work properly as a machine.
Click to expand...
Nimzovik Responds:

Bold Lettering mine.

Spot on. It is interesting that the Muslim Religious factions are apparantly …silent… Do they also not believe abortion is wrong?

That aside. I knew when many Catholics labored to facilitate Obama care via their support for it the issue would come back to haunt them. Methinks they actually believed the Democrats when they were informed the ‘Conscience Clause’ would be in place. How silly was that? I wonder if this will convince them just whom they are dealing with? I mean thinlk about it. The Democrats 1) get voluminous amounts of money from the Planned parenthood. 2) Have always (well within the last 20 years or so at least) stood for the social issues that are anathema to our Faith 3) Support the Gay Lobby. How could they not see the hand writting on the wall so to speak? IMHO I am still scratching my head over this one…:confused:🤷

Praying my Rosary daily regards – Nimzovik
 
The media is misrepresenting the facts. They are reporting this solely as a contraception issue. It is a sterilization, contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and freedom of conscience and religion issue.

If the laity does not rise up and protest, the bishops will be left twisting in the wind. Have you written to your congressmen, senators, and Obama? We must!

Bishop Zubic of the Diocese of Pittsburgh said it best:

diopitt.org/bridging-gap/hhs-delays-rule-contraceptive-coverage
 
stopHHS.com



President Obama, in your speech at Notre Dame and elsewhere, you promised that you would provide conscience exemptions for those whose faith forbade their participation in evil.
You have broken that promise by forcing our Church to provide insurance coverage for sterilization, contraception, and various abortifacient drugs. These are practices that for 2,000 years we have taught are intrinsically evil.
You disagree. We understand. But you refuse to respect our right to live out our faith. You have decided to use the coercive power of the state to force your fellow citizens to commit what they believe are evil acts. You have asked the impossible. We cannot be good Americans by being bad Christians.
Turn from your intolerance. Leave in place the conscience exemptions that have served us well since 1973 (42 USC 300a-7 (d)). Vacate the proposed HHS mandate
 
For Muslims and Jews, abortionis allowed before viability. Using ABC is no an issue for them.

Only the Catholic Church opposes ABC and all abortions.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
For Muslims and Jews, abortionis allowed before viability. Using ABC is no an issue for them.

Only the Catholic Church opposes ABC and all abortions.

Jim
Click to expand...
The Church continues to be the beacon of Truth in an increasingly immoral world
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top