Catholics and the HHS mandate

[rfournier103]

If we went to war with China tomorrow, our Navy would blockade their country, forcing them to use land-routes, many of which are held by our allies.

There is a very large place where electronics are made right here in the US. You might know about it, they are where most of the computer technology in the world is invented.

As for steel, we have junk yards FULL of metal, and the price just keeps dropping. We could start with the miles and miles of cargo containers stacked ten stories high in San Fran. Fact of the matter is, we don’t need a thing from China. And we’d stop buying from China if folks would look at the tag on the back for a “Made in the USA” or “Made in Canada” label. That’s right, I’ll buy from our neighbour to the north avec pleasure.

A most excellent reply. You are right. I got a little heated because this is a sensitive issue for me. The fact remains, though that congress is NOT regulating trade.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC… Government needs to stay out of our churches and said churches’ services. As I have said before; certain groups clamor for separation of church and state, but only when it suits them. And THEY call Christians hypocrites!

 

[edwest2]

I happen to know a little bit about how our government is SUPPOSED to function, and the congress is SUPPOSED to regulate trade between the states AND BETWEEN US AND FOREIGN NATIONS.

From 1789 to 1994 there were MANY tariffs (a tariff is a tax on imported or exported goods; for those of you who do not know) protecting the United States’s manufacturers AND her workers. A heavy tax on imported goods would fill the U.S. coffers, AND force many companies to manufacture goods HERE, rather than with slave labor in China. Thereby, creating jobs and PUTTING US BACK TO WORK. This issue makes me so mad!

Anyone who says THAT isn’t the federal government’s job doesn’t understand what the government is supposed to be doing. They have sold us out to our enemies, all for a few bucks.

OR

Try this on for size… we have become so dependant on foreign goods; what if we went to war with China tomorrow? Don’t laugh. They are our BIGGEST threat. Where would our electronics come from? We need electronics for guided missles, fighter jets, radar, countermeasures, even two-way radios. China won’t sell us these things to use against them. It would take YEARS to re-tool to manufacture them here.

Where would we get steel to build more subs, tanks and planes? I’m betting we won’t get any help from China on that, either. Steel mills close in the United States every year, and no new ones open to take their place.

It’s a simple fix, and government doesn’t need to grow a bit. They just need to do their jobs, do what’s best for their bosses (that’s US, by the way), and focus on important issues rather than butting into OUR business.

Any questions?

I read a lot of technical books regarding the military. China is not our biggest threat, however, that is what they are building toward. So what does that mean? For our own national security, we must, and will, have the infrastructure in place to make all the electronics and other necessary parts and equipment as long as the military can convince Congress to budget more money to face a possible threat like China.

There is a part of the military and intelligence community that does nothing but monitor all threats and produce scenario reports for all contingencies. That’s all they do. So, when a threat reaches a certain threshold level, the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and certain Intelligence and Military Agencies, already have all of the information the President will need regarding the threat.

Unfortunately, their motto is: “In times of peace, prepare for war.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Swiss_Guy]

What I don’t understand are things like this: m.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16914

So basically some Democrats in Wisconsin required basically the same thing as the HHS Mandate except you could be self-insured as a way out, but some Catholic dioceses (e.g Madison) couldn’t self insure due to expenses so they ended up providing the contraception and stuff to employers saying that if the stuff was used you would get fired. So essentially Wisconsin dioceses that aren’t self insured are “complying” with the same mandate. But then when they comply with that they are then morally responsible for providing abortifacients:

“From the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure, are also morally responsible for it.”

• “Statement on the So-Called Morning After Pill,” Vatican Pontifical Council for Life, October 31, 2000.

Anyone have a (good) explanation?

 

[_Abyssinia]

What I don’t understand are things like this: m.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16914

So basically some Democrats in Wisconsin required basically the same thing as the HHS Mandate except you could be self-insured as a way out, but some Catholic dioceses (e.g Madison) couldn’t self insure due to expenses so they ended up providing the contraception and stuff to employers saying that if the stuff was used you would get fired. So essentially Wisconsin dioceses that aren’t self insured are “complying” with the same mandate. But then when they comply with that they are then morally responsible for providing abortifacients:

Anyone have a (good) explanation?

Claim: “Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”

Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false. All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA).None of these havens is available under the federal mandate. It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption.It is broader: It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion. Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.

usccb.org/news/2012/12-020.cfm

Is there precedent for such a broad mandate for contraception and sterilisation coverage?

No. Until now, no federal law required private health plans to cover these items. Even state contraceptive mandates (enacted in approximately half the states), with rare exception, do not require sterilization coverage, and do not apply to all health plans. As a general rule, state mandates apply to insured plans that provide prescription drug coverage.

HHS says its language is very similar to religious exemptions in many state contraceptive mandates, but this is incorrect. Most states with an exemption from such a mandate provide broader conscience protection than HHS has authorized in its final interim rule. In addition, HHS’s reliance on state law ignores several things: (1) as noted above, the state laws themselves are not as sweeping as HHS’s mandate; (2) almost half the states impose no contraceptive mandate at all, so they “exempt” everyone; (3) some states which do have a mandate exclude some drugs like “emergency” contraception. Thus even in the states, the scope of this mandate is largely unprecedented.

cacatholic.org/index.php/issues2/religious-liberty/conscience-rights/190-background-mandated-contraceptive-and-sterilization-coverage