HHS Mandate Information

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoorKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PoorKnight

Guest
Hey Folks,

Just listened to an AWESOME homily on John the Baptist and the HHS mandate. Afterward my dad was very upset and said the priest was providing ‘mis-information’ regarding the HHS mandate. Specifically:
  1. That there was a ‘comprimise’ that no longer involves the Church but only insurance companies. My response was that most churches / parishes are self-insured. Plus that the wording of the ‘comprimise’ is actually the EXACT wording of the origional mandate.
  2. That the Church has been anti-religious freedom for ‘centuries’ and now ‘convienently’ is pro-religious freedom. I had never heard that before so didn’t have a response.
  3. That the HHS mandate wasn’t actually a legislative initiative so it doesn’t have any effect on anything. My response was that it was essentially an executive order made through the appointed head of the H.H.S. thereby making it binding.
I was looking for the following:
  1. Any documents that shows that the wording of the comprimise is identical to the origional.
  2. Whether or not the Church has been ‘anti-religioius freedom’ in the past and if they were, if that was it’s teachings or just people.
  3. How to show that the HHS mandate is actually binding.
  4. And finally, how this forces the Church to pay for these services.
Sorry, I’m only a wanna-be apologist and still have lots of holes in my game (hopefully those ‘holes’ are ‘wholey’ ‘holy’ ‘holes’ 🙂

Thanks all, and God Bless :signofcross:
 
I hope you find the following helpful:

stophhs.com/stop-hhs-faq/

The basic argument is this: the Federal Government should not, and we believe, must not force anyone to purchase a product or service. The heart of the argument from the Church’s point of view is that the Federal Government wants to force us to support something that goes against our conscience and reality. Artificial Contraception heals nothing, cures nothing and fixes nothing. Sure, you have a broken bone and a doctor sets it, you get drugs to cure or treat any number of medical problems from minor to major, or external salves to treat certain skin disorders. All artificial contraception does is prevent the average healthy human body from performing its natural function. I’m not going to pay for that.

Whenever anyone makes a statement that the Church was at any time, ‘anti-religious freedom,’ ask them how they know this.

Peace,
Ed
 
Thank you so much for the info. If anyone else has some links, especially news links that report that the language of the so-called “comprimise” has not changed, that would be greatly appriciated.

God Bless :signofcross:
 
Congress and the President pass laws. But most laws do not get down to the necesssary details to implement them. Congress depends on the Executive Branch agencies - Health and Human Service (HHS) in this case, to develop “Federal Regulations.” Such regulations have the force of law and must be complied with.

The President can also issue Executive Orders which have the force of law as well.

Anyone can bring a law suit to challenge a law, a federal regulation, or an executive order. The law suits have been filed.

We can vote for or against those who passed laws we like or do not like.
As I understand the “compromise,” it had two main points:
  1. The required implementation date was extended one year for religious entities.
  2. The only change was to shift the requirement to the insurance companies. That minor change was cosmetic, to make it less visibile, but still requiring the objectionable services, IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH.
To call the above a “compromise” is to stretch the meaning of the word to an illogical extreme. There was little to none face to face discussions with religious leaders. Just a statement announcing the two points above.

It should be noted that HHS has issued a number of waivers as it sees fit. But not in this case. WHY?
The larger issue is how the First Amendment is to be carried out. Congress, the President, and HHS cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Jesus healed the sick and fed the hungry. Social service is a religious exercise.

HHS, with the President clear support, is saying the GOVERNMENT has the right to determine the limits of the free exercise of religion. Pray in Church - OK you are exempted - but perform any other social service according to your Faith and you are not exempted.

The First Amendment does not seem to give any passing adminstration the right to determine what is free exercse of religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top