Catholic groups file suit over HHS transgender regulation

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
FARGO, N.D. (CNS) — The Catholic Benefits Association, the Diocese of Fargo and Catholic Charities North Dakota filed a lawsuit Dec. 28 in U.S. District Court in North Dakota against a federal regulation scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 that redefines “sex” for anti-discrimination purposes to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Click to expand...
The regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services requires that Catholic hospitals and health care providers perform or provide gender transition services, hormonal treatments and counseling as well as a host of surgeries that would remove or transform the sexual organs of men or women transitioning to the other gender. The HHS regulation requires group health plans to cover these procedures and services.
Click to expand...
“We ask only for the freedom to serve consistent with our conscience and our Catholic faith,” Bishop John T. Folda of Fargo said in a statement, released by the Catholic Benefits Association. “While we do not discriminate against individuals because of their orientation, our Catholic values will not permit us to pay for or facilitate actions that are contrary to our faith.”
Click to expand...
catholicphilly.com/2016/12/news/national-news/catholic-groups-file-suit-over-hhs-transgender-regulation/
 
Redefine? I wish I could redefine laws and regulations without going through the Congress to suit my agenda. Why use the Constitutional means when you use can executive fiat?
 
I think I am on-board with identity politics.

I identify as a billionaire, so, I guess the government now needs to send me billions of dollars so I can live my billionaire identity without discrimination.

Hmmmm, what will I buy first? 😉
 
This regulation will hopefully be done away with when Trump takes office. Not that I don’t expect another Democratic president to try to revive it in the future.
 
Jersey_Jeepster said:
I think I am on-board with identity politics.

I identify as a billionaire, so, I guess the government now needs to send me billions of dollars so I can live my billionaire identity without discrimination.

Hmmmm, what will I buy first? 😉
Click to expand...
I identify as an astronaut. I expect a welcome letter from NASA any day now or i’ll sue them for discrimination against the unqualified.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Why do you think it would be done away with once Trump takes office?
I don’t think he’s ever mentioned anything about this kind of regulation, has he?

Plus, he recently confirmed that he’s not against same-sex marriage, so his thinking on sexuality and the laws surrounding it are not “traditional”.

.
Click to expand...
Would Trump need to do away it or could Tom Price, if he is indeed confirmed for the position of HHS secretary?

When did Trump say that? What I remember is him saying that it had been “settled” because of the Supreme Court decision, which isn’t exactly an endorsement of same-sex marriage but it’s also not a response that likely satisfied some people opposed to same-sex marriage. Even Jim Obergefell doesn’t appear to be totally convinced the issue is entirely settled: theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/15/same-sex-marriage-plaintiff-jim-obergefell-doubts-trump-claim-its-settled-law
 
DaddyGirl said:
Why do you think it would be done away with once Trump takes office?
I don’t think he’s ever mentioned anything about this kind of regulation, has he?

Plus, he recently confirmed that he’s not against same-sex marriage, so his thinking on sexuality and the laws surrounding it are not “traditional”.

.
Click to expand...
What I expect is that Congress will enact legislation defining what ‘sex’ is for purposes of discrimination.

And I expect Trump will sign it, as he would have little reason to reject it.
 
Brendan said:
What I expect is that Congress will enact legislation defining what ‘sex’ is for purposes of discrimination.

And I expect Trump will sign it, as he would have little reason to reject it.
Click to expand...
Think about the pathetic intellectual state of our people, that this is even necessary for discussion.

There are a lot of specific issues that are problems in this country.
In my opinion, the paramount problem and root of most others is the loss of the ability to reason. We might be the most ignorant and intellectually slothful people in history.
 
goout said:
Think about the pathetic intellectual state of our people, that this is even necessary for discussion.

There are a lot of specific issues that are problems in this country.
In my opinion, the paramount problem and root of most others is the loss of the ability to reason. We might be the most ignorant and intellectually slothful people in history.
Click to expand...
Painting too broadly here. Read some Catholic commentary and compare that with what a secular aggressive media is promoting.

Count me out of the We. If laws can be passed by fiat then that’s not We, or Democracy. We are being told that what is contrary to our own biology is not only OK but should be protected by legal fiat. And those who speak against the “new normal” are told to shut up, or called names, which shuts down dialogue.

Ed
 
I would agree there is a question of clear thinking where a person is legally permitted to declare that their gender is not the biological one with which they were born.

Understood with an adequate generality, it is the argument that in the nature versus nurture argument, environmental factors prevail even over biological fact. It is a slippery slope. Should, for example, a person also be permitted to decide for themselves the color of their eyes, their age or their racial identity?

Do we see the absurdity of this line of thinking?
 
Brendan said:
What I expect is that Congress will enact legislation defining what ‘sex’ is for purposes of discrimination.

And I expect Trump will sign it, as he would have little reason to reject it.
Click to expand...
Besides forcing people to act against conscience without there being a compelling reason to do so, it will only add to the costs of insurance and programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
 
Thomas_White said:
I would agree there is a question of clear thinking where a person is legally permitted to declare that their gender is not the biological one with which they were born.

Understood with an adequate generality, it is the argument that in the nature versus nurture argument, environmental factors prevail even over biological fact. It is a slippery slope. Should, for example, a person also be permitted to decide for themselves the color of their eyes, their age or their racial identity?

Do we see the absurdity of this line of thinking?
Click to expand...
This has already happened. Remember Rachel Dolezal, a woman who claimed she is black, but is white?

breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/31/trans-racial-rachel-dolezal-disinvited/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top