Boehner: Feds should back off birth control order

[JimG]

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

Not sure about Muslims & Jews, but up untio 1930, every Protestant denomination had the same teaching about contraception as the Catholic Church–that it is wrong and violates the moral law. It was in that year that the Lambeth Conference first took the Anglican church away from that historic teaching against contraception; they allowed that it might be practiced among married couples for grave reasons. Well, we saw where it went from there. Other denominations followed. Contraception led to promiscuity, to out of wedlock birth, to abortion. Only the Catholic Church maintained this historic teaching, which it had maintained for nearly 2,000 years and the Protestants had maintained for 400 years.

 

[L_piperatus]

This is not only an attack on freedom of conscience (freedom of religion), it’s also an attack on freedom of professional judgment. Let’s not forget, a lot of professionals do NOT regard contraception and abortion as healthcare, but rather as forms of drug abuse and malpractice - and this opinion is based not on religious, but rather on professional-scientific arguments.

To my mind and in my professional judgment (I’m a professional with a lengthy list of qualifications and accomplishments in the medical/scientific field), popping a pill that sickens you (makes you infertile) is not healthcare, and popping a pill that kills your baby is also not healthcare. In addition, giving yourself a heroin injection is not healthcare, taking LSD is not healthcare, and committing suicide by swallowing an overdose of sleeping pills is not healthcare either, even though with heroin, LSD, and with the sleeping pills, we are talking about “drugs”. And silicon breast implant surgery is also not healthcare.

But here we have the arrogant Washington DC bureaucrats who think that they can settle a professional dispute and dictate to medical professionals what they are supposed to do.

 

[JimG]

This is not only an attack on freedom of conscience (freedom of religion), it’s also an attack on freedom of professional judgment. Let’s not forget, a lot of professionals do NOT regard contraception and abortion as healthcare, but rather as forms of drug abuse and malpractice - and this opinion is based not on religious, but rather on professional-scientific arguments.

To my mind and in my professional judgment (I’m a professional with a lengthy list of qualifications and accomplishments in the medical/scientific field), popping a pill that sickens you (makes you infertile) is not healthcare, and popping a pill that kills your baby is also not healthcare. In addition, giving yourself a heroin injection is not healthcare, taking LSD is not healthcare, and committing suicide by swallowing an overdose of sleeping pills is not healthcare either, even though with heroin, LSD, and with the sleeping pills, we are talking about “drugs”. And silicon breast implant surgery is also not healthcare.

But here we have the arrogant Washington DC bureaucrats who think that they can settle a professional dispute and dictate to medical professionals what they are supposed to do.

Of course, under the health care law, professional judgement is ultimately exercised solely by the Secretary of HHS. And that’s a danger in a great many ways.

 

[StAnastasia]

None, I should presume.

An dubious assumption.

 

[Teelynn]

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

OK…I have done everything now but to write to Obama. I will, I just have to stop cringing long enough to uncramp my fingers enough to type…to Obama:banghead:…and to do so in as non abrasively but as assertively as possible.

I actually had kind of a back and forth email to my Senator…Dick Durbin…nough said? Ended up telling him this is not over yet. I have a Republican Congressman so I hope he will be on board…haven’t heard back yet.

And of course the media is misrepresenting the facts. They are all or most of them in bed with Obama. But yes, I agree, this is the most egregious violation of religious freedom this country has ever seen, we have to all be on board with this and do absolutely everything we can.

The problem will be of course to get Harry Reid in the Senate to move on anything pro life. If someone could figure out a way to get him to move on this new religious freedom restoration act that Marco Rubio introduced, that would be ever so miraculous.

 

[Teelynn]

An dubious assumption.

This is all too true unfortunately. Not only do Catholics nation wide take artificial contraceptives, but in the not too distant past we have had not too few Bishops condoning the practice. But…I don’t think any of them went so far as to condone or approve of sterilization…or abortifacients. The issue however, is as much about our freedom of religion as it is about Church Doctrine. It will very quickly become non existent if we don’t fight this for all we’re worth…very quickly.

I must say, I have never been prouder of our Bishops for speaking out…I think over 80% of them have to date. Now it’s time for the laity to get behind them.

 

[Teelynn]

and then we have this:

Obama says draws from Christian faith to craft policy

President Barack Obama sought to emphasize his Christian faith on Thursday, telling a key election-year voting bloc that he prays every morning and has crafted elements of his economic policies in line with Jesus’ teachings.

I really don’t recognize his brand of Christianity.

 

[JoanREDirector]

While nobody seemed to be looking a once Catholic health care organization that had a number of hospitals in the Southwest US. Changed its name to Dignity Heath Care and announced that it would be delivering the same “great” heath care as before but would be Catholic no longer. A hospital in this institution had defied the local bishop concerning practices regarding life issues that were contrary to Catholic teaching.

You’re looking at American heath care in the future. Once our magnificent Catholic hospitals were firmly anchored in the religious orders that founded them. They were staffed and administered by women religious. In case you haven’t noticed, the sisters have disapeared, not just the habits, the women themselves. Who governs these hospitals now. Who sets policies? Are these hospitals subject to the bishop of the diocese in which they are located?

I fear this assalt on Catholic institutions, particularly hospitals, is calculated. So called progressives see them as ripe for the picking. All they have to do is shake the tree by ordering compliance with something they know is we consider evil. One by one these once fine institutions will sever their Catholic connection and fall into secular hands.

I’m joining my prayers with all the sainted foundresses of religious orders and all the holy women who once walked the corridors of these Catholic hospitals. May God protect our Catholic hospitals. Make them once again shining beacons of God’s mercy to the poor and suffering.

 

[Teelynn]

While nobody seemed to be looking a once Catholic health care organization that had a number of hospitals in the Southwest US. Changed its name to Dignity Heath Care and announced that it would be delivering the same “great” heath care as before but would be Catholic no longer. A hospital in this institution had defied the local bishop concerning practices regarding life issues that were contrary to Catholic teaching.

You’re looking at American heath care in the future. Once our magnificent Catholic hospitals were firmly anchored in the religious orders that founded them. They were staffed and administered by women religious. In case you haven’t noticed, the sisters have disapeared, not just the habits, the women themselves. Who governs these hospitals now. Who sets policies? Are these hospitals subject to the bishop of the diocese in which they are located?

I fear this assalt on Catholic institutions, particularly hospitals, is calculated. So called progressives see them as ripe for the picking. All they have to do is shake the tree by ordering compliance with something they know is we consider evil. One by one these once fine institutions will sever their Catholic connection and fall into secular hands.

I’m joining my prayers with all the sainted foundresses of religious orders and all the holy women who once walked the corridors of these Catholic hospitals. May God protect our Catholic hospitals. Make them once again shining beacons of God’s mercy to the poor and suffering.

I’m all in!

 

[SamH]

Of course, under the health care law, professional judgement is ultimately exercised solely by the Secretary of HHS. And that’s a danger in a great many ways.

That is the problem with USCCB position. They are simply going after the mandate - the entire law needs to be repealed. Even if they are successful and have this mandate repealed the law is still in place. Are they prepared to fight this fight again in two years - then again in five? Or fight the “other” mandates that will be coming down? Will they be able to fight the HHS Secretary that mandates that no health care dollars be spent on live births with only 25 weeks gestational? Or that “heroic efforts” be banned on people over age 72?

 

[Teelynn]

That is the problem with USCCB position. They are simply going after the mandate - the entire law needs to be repealed. Even if they are successful and have this mandate repealed the law is still in place. Are they prepared to fight this fight again in two years - then again in five? Or fight the “other” mandates that will be coming down? Will they be able to fight the HHS Secretary that mandates that no health care dollars be spent on live births with only 25 weeks gestational? Or that “heroic efforts” be banned on people over age 72?

Boy this is an excellent point…but they probably don’t want to be dismissed by the administration as being hyper vigilant about things that “might not” come to pass. The Bishops opened themselves up for this when they supported the bill in general with promises on conscience protections. Now they have to fight this one step at a time.

Let’s face it. We all know that this bill was a TERRIBLE BILL. The whole thing was put together by people that number one, had an agenda, and number two, made the whole thing so confusing that no one really knew what was in it. Nancy Pelosi was correct…“We have to pass the bill before we know what’s in it.”:doh2:

 

[JimG]

That is the problem with USCCB position. They are simply going after the mandate - the entire law needs to be repealed. Even if they are successful and have this mandate repealed the law is still in place. Are they prepared to fight this fight again in two years - then again in five? Or fight the “other” mandates that will be coming down? Will they be able to fight the HHS Secretary that mandates that no health care dollars be spent on live births with only 25 weeks gestational? Or that “heroic efforts” be banned on people over age 72?

You are correct. Since the HHS Secretary is given regulatory authority to implement the law, regulations can, and will, be passed periodically to change what is mandated as required coverage. Next year it could be early abortion, the following year it might be any abortion, later it could be required coverage for assisted suicide in those states where it is legal. As long as the bureaucracy is in charge, one has to watch them constantly, which is not an easy thing to do, and try to object when they do something evil.

But they are not required to listen. After this regulatory mandate was proposed, the HHS received thousands of comments objecting to the proposed rule. All of those were ignored.

 

[SamH]

The entire point of the “Health Care Affordability Act” is to limit services. Why do you think the “Cadillac Tax” has been implimented? With no adjustment for inflation by 2018 nearly all private health insurance plans will be hit with the 40% tax - except those that Obama has chosen to give an exemption to - namely government workers and unions. By the end of the decade most coverages will be subject to the tax.

My company offers a pretty basic health insurance plan but by 2016 it will be hit with the 40% tax - at that time we will drop our plan and pay the fine/fee to the state exchange and our employees will have to get their insurance there.

What kind of services will one expect from a medicaid like policy? Specified numbers of visits to specialist, limited scope care for “undesirables” and high cost patients. For basic medical coverage it might not be too bad - possibly even an improvement - but the people that suffer from catastrophic illnesses that are hard to treat (epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, cancer, Parkinson’s - like my son) the coverage will be like that in England or Canada - a death watch.

 

[Teelynn]

The entire point of the “Health Care Affordability Act” is to limit services. Why do you think the “Cadillac Tax” has been implimented? With no adjustment for inflation by 2018 nearly all private health insurance plans will be hit with the 40% tax - except those that Obama has chosen to give an exemption to - namely government workers and unions. By the end of the decade most coverages will be subject to the tax.

My company offers a pretty basic health insurance plan but by 2016 it will be hit with the 40% tax - at that time we will drop our plan and pay the fine/fee to the state exchange and our employees will have to get their insurance there.

What kind of services will one expect from a medicaid like policy? Specified numbers of visits to specialist, limited scope care for “undesirables” and high cost patients. For basic medical coverage it might not be too bad - possibly even an improvement - but the people that suffer from catastrophic illnesses that are hard to treat (epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, cancer, Parkinson’s - like my son) the coverage will be like that in England or Canada - a death watch.

Prayers Sam. He and your family are in my prayers.