Obama Mandate Forces Catholic College to Drop Insurance

[juliee]

Obama Mandate Forces Catholic College to Drop Insurance

Steubenville, OH – Franciscan University appears to be the first casualty of the new Obama HHS mandate that requires Catholic colleges, groups and businesses to pay for drugs that may cause abortions and birth control for their employees.

lifenews.com/2012/05/15/obama-mandate-forces-catholic-college-to-drop-insurance/

 

[jay29]

It’s the whole point of the mandate - to get the Church out of healthcare.

 

[M-Dent]

I saw this on the Schools website.

The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.

franciscan.edu/StudentHealthInsurance/

“Absent prompt congressional attention to this infringement on fundamental civil liberties, we believe the only remaining recourse … is in the courts,” lawyers for the group wrote.

USCCB attorneys foresee legal action against ‘unjust and unlawful’ HHS mandate

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s the whole point of the mandate - to get the Church out of healthcare.

Not entirely. There is more in it for Obama than just that. It’s also to present the Church with a terrible choice; to sin or to be fined for failing to sin. It’s also to persuade Catholics on the edge of dissidence that nobody should listen to the bishops or the Magesterium. Also, he thinks he’s going to buy womens’ votes with this. Obama is an inveterate enemy of the Catholic Church

 

[manualman]

It’s a shame that America has largely forgotten that evil can sometimes have a friendly face, a hearty handshake and an aura of sincerity. Principles aren’t decided based on personality. Too bad we’ve forgotten that hard lesson

 

[edwest2]

Evil usually comes in a nice package. This Catholic College was not a casualty to anything or anyone - it stood up for its Catholic principles. It is a beacon of light.

Health care is for broken bones, disease, injury and mental health problems. It seeks to fix, cure and treat a problem. Artificial means of birth control fix or treat nothing. They interfere with normal biological functions. They are voluntary, not necessary.

Peace,
Ed

 

[EviPolevhia]

A friend of mine posted this article with the comment “Sad day, when we are not free to have health coverage and practice our religion. Catholics are targeted now. Who is next?”. To which I responded with the following.

"The freedom to practice one’s religion ends where it conflicts with Secular law, this to the best of my knowledge should’ve always been the case. If a radical Muslim family lived in the US and one of their family became and Apostate I would certainly NOT want them to kill that person. But yet under radical Islam such a thing is permitted.

This is not Catholicism being specifically targeted. You think you’re the only religion that has a problem with this law?"

 

[manualman]

This is not Catholicism being specifically targeted. You think you’re the only religion that has a problem with this law?"

Take a philosophy class, for crying out loud! You are seriously equating the “need” for people to have free contraceptives and other people’s rights to kill based on their honor code?

Civil law in this country has always been built in such a way to honor the hierarchy of human rights. Civil law bans muslims from killing family members who have ‘dishonored’ them, because that action would violate the more basic right of said family member (right to life!). The HHS mandate forces catholics and catholic institutions to violate primary moral teachings for no compelling reason. Nobody is so hard up that they can’t go to Walgreens and buy a $5 pack of condoms with their OWN money. There is simply no need to forcibly require us to violate our conscience in order to satisfy the preferences of other groups (I don’t like condoms, I want my pricey pill or my vasectomy and I want it free). That turns the hierarchy of rights upside down!

 

[Farsight001]

A friend of mine posted this article with the comment “Sad day, when we are not free to have health coverage and practice our religion. Catholics are targeted now. Who is next?”. To which I responded with the following.

"The freedom to practice one’s religion ends where it conflicts with Secular law, this to the best of my knowledge should’ve always been the case. If a radical Muslim family lived in the US and one of their family became and Apostate I would certainly NOT want them to kill that person. But yet under radical Islam such a thing is permitted.

This is not Catholicism being specifically targeted. You think you’re the only religion that has a problem with this law?"

Freedom to practice one’s religion actually doesn’t end where it conflicts with Secular law, since freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. The only rights that truly trump freedom of religion are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The history of this country is filled with the government having to make exemptions to laws for religions because it is such a fundamental right. Extremist Muslims cannot kill their apostate family member because it violates the fundamental right to life. Catholics not providing abortifacients and contraceptives to others doesn’t violate any such fundamental right. In fact, it saves lives. So the two situations are nothing alike.

 

[EviPolevhia]

Freedom to practice one’s religion actually doesn’t end where it conflicts with Secular law, since freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. The only rights that truly trump freedom of religion are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So cutting short what for most insurance companies is standard medical care is not an infringement of liberty?

The history of this country is filled with the government having to make exemptions to laws for religions because it is such a fundamental right. Extremist Muslims cannot kill their apostate family member because it violates the fundamental right to life. Catholics not providing abortifacients and contraceptives to others doesn’t violate any such fundamental right. In fact, it saves lives. So the two situations are nothing alike.

So that’s why we allowed Mormons to get polygamous marriages, right? I mean it doesn’t infringe upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, right? Oh, no, wait. We told them no.

Also it’s not about saving lives. If it was just a matter of that then it would simply be illegal throughout the country and the matter would be closed.

 

[manualman]

So cutting short what for most insurance companies is standard medical care is not an infringement of liberty?

So that’s why we allowed Mormons to get polygamous marriages, right? I mean it doesn’t infringe upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, right? Oh, no, wait. We told them no.

What? Nobody is attempting to prohibit insurance companies from offering sterilization and/or contraceptive coverage. We are protesting the requirement that all employers MUST provide such things. Surely you can tell the difference?

Polygamy was banned because it was recognized to inherently be exploitive of women. The institution itself is ordered to that effect. Thus the right of women to equal intrinsic dignity and worth under the law compared to a man trumps the desire of a man to have multiple wives. This is the same hierarchy of rights spoken of above that you’ve so far ignored (indeed so has the entire Obama Administration).

 

[Farsight001]

So cutting short what for most insurance companies is standard medical care is not an infringement of liberty?

Technically speaking, that would not be an infringement of liberty, no. And even if it was, freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom. That aside, no part of your question was representative of reality.

So that’s why we allowed Mormons to get polygamous marriages, right? I mean it doesn’t infringe upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, right? Oh, no, wait. We told them no.

It’s not allowed because it, unlike Catholic opposition to contraception, is not a requirement of the faith, but only allowed. No part of Mormon teachings says that a man must marry more than one wife, so not allowing them to marry more than one wife does not prevent them from abiding by their religion. In contrast, we are required to be opposed to contraception. Any Catholic who helps a person procure an abortion in any way, shape, or form (if I so much as give a girl gas money to get to the clinic), they incur an automatic excommunication from the church. Not so if a Mormon decides to keep only one wife.

Also it’s not about saving lives. If it was just a matter of that then it would simply be illegal throughout the country and the matter would be closed.

What in the world are you talking about? How is the legality of an action evidence that it’s not about saving lives? There is no logical connection between the two whatsoever.

 

[EviPolevhia]

You are seriously equating the “need” for people to have free contraceptives and other people’s rights to kill based on their honor code?

I don’t recall ever saying the words need, free, or contraceptive. Who’s argument are you going after?

The HHS mandate forces catholics and catholic institutions to violate primary moral teachings for no compelling reason. Nobody is so hard up that they can’t go to Walgreens and buy a $5 pack of condoms with their OWN money. There is simply no need to forcibly require us to violate our conscience in order to satisfy the preferences of other groups (I don’t like condoms, I want my pricey pill or my vasectomy and I want it free). That turns the hierarchy of rights upside down!

The compelling reason is this forces Universities, Hospitals, Insurers, and Charities (Specificly not Churches or other houses of worship) to offer the same services as other Universities, Hospitals, Insurers, and Charities. I’m sure all of those organizations receive some Federal funding. If you don’t want them to play by the government’s rules you can’t also expect them to get anything from the Government. I’m 100% fine with a Catholic run Hospital following Catholic teachings on every matter if they cut all financial and legal ties with the Government.

Also I find it amusing you suggest condoms. Isn’t that just as gravely immoral?

Technically speaking, that would not be an infringement of liberty, no. And even if it was, freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom.

Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness are all mentioned in the same breath. If you’re saying Freedom of Religion trumps Liberty, “…freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom”, then why not Life as well as per my example of an honor killing?

It’s not allowed because it, unlike Catholic opposition to contraception, is not a requirement of the faith, but only allowed. No part of Mormon teachings says that a man must marry more than one wife, so not allowing them to marry more than one wife does not prevent them from abiding by their religion.

Incorrect. Jacob 2:27-30. It still had to be a proper marriage through their priesthood. But until they changed their minds in 1890 it was something they said that God had required of them.

 

[Farsight001]

Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness are all mentioned in the same breath. If you’re saying Freedom of Religion trumps Liberty, “…freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom”, then why not Life as well as per my example of an honor killing?

Pardon, perhaps I misspoke - I wouldn’t call such a thing a liberty in the first place - at least certainly not the way the constitution defines it. Liberty means not being a slave and little else. Contraception access is, at best, a right, not a matter of liberty. And freedom of religion still trumps right to contraception, no matter how one tries to spin it.

On top of all this, no one is actually taking away the right to contraception. They’re just saying that you can’t get it from them. I have a right to eat meat too. But I’m not about to complain and rant and rave and raise hell over a vegan restaurant not offering any. I’ll just pick a different restaurant.

Incorrect. Jacob 2:27-30. It still had to be a proper marriage through their priesthood. But until they changed their minds in 1890 it was something they said that God had required of them.

I call bull. You’re saying that if a Mormon man was not married to more than one woman, he was sinning according to Mormon teachings? Bullsnot. Single Mormon men who had not found a wife yet, and married men who had yet to find a second wife were sinning simply as a result of their state of being? Ridiculous. This is probably why nowhere in your provided verses does it make such a claim.

 

[EviPolevhia]

I have a right to eat meat too. But I’m not about to complain and rant and rave and raise hell over a vegan restaurant not offering any.

Show me a Restaurant that’s given the same government support as a University and then maybe that analogy works.

Single Mormon men who had not found a wife yet, and married men who had yet to find a second wife were sinning simply as a result of their state of being? Ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous sounding as Original sin to a non believer.

 

[Farsight001]

Show me a Restaurant that’s given the same government support as a University and then maybe that analogy works.

Nothing in any law says that if the government gives a place financial support, that the government then gets to influence that place’s rules and policies, so yes, the analogy does, in fact, work. The government gives government assistance. See the word “give”? It is not a trade or a favor done so that the school will owe them one in return.

Just as ridiculous sounding as Original sin to a non believer.

A non-sequitor. Return to the subject please.

 

[EviPolevhia]

Nothing in any law says that if the government gives a place financial support, that the government then gets to influence that place’s rules and policies, so yes, the analogy does, in fact, work. The government gives government assistance. See the word “give”? It is not a trade or a favor done so that the school will owe them one in return.

How many examples of laws affecting what organizations can and cannot do in order to qualify for Governmental assistance do you want?

A non-sequitor. Return to the subject please.

Ok, I’ll connect the dots for you then. You said “No part of Mormon teachings says that a man must marry more than one wife”. I pointed out that was wrong. You said it was rediculous that someone could be born into a situation where they were inherently at sin unless they undertook specific steps, and that such a condition was rediculous. Sounds the exact same as Original Sin to me. “Single Mormon men who had not found a wife yet, and married men who had yet to find a second wife were sinning simply as a result of their state of being? Ridiculous” versus “People being born are sinning simply as a result of their state of being.” Does you follow now?

 

[Farsight001]

How many examples of laws affecting what organizations can and cannot do in order to qualify for Governmental assistance do you want?

I want just one. Your list is a list of conditions set out beforehand, as to say, we will give you this money if you do this for us. The issue with the church however, has become, “we’ve been giving you this money for a while, so now you have to do what we say, even though it was never a condition of you getting this money before” It’s not the same situation at all and you know it.

Ok, I’ll connect the dots for you then. You said “No part of Mormon teachings says that a man must marry more than one wife”. I pointed out that was wrong.

You didn’t point out that that was wrong. That’s the issue here. As I already explained, if you cared to actually read what I wrote, nothing in your quote of LDS scriptures says that the man must be married to more than one wife. It says that if they are married to one wife, they are not allowed concubines. Not the same thing.

You said it was rediculous that someone could be born into a situation where they were inherently at sin unless they undertook specific steps, and that such a condition was rediculous. Sounds the exact same as Original Sin to me.

If you think that sounds the same, then I suggest you figure out what original sin is first.

Does you follow now?

I’ve followed just fine this entire time. It appears that you are confused though.

 

[manualman]

Ah, I see what is going on here. Evi subscribes to the increasingly common notion of the state as an independent entity, very nearly a person instead of as a stand in representing the people (all of them). This is a view totally at odds with the traditional stance America has taken in which government agencies, services and funding were seen are merely means to achieving a goal, rather than an end unto itself.

In the traditional view, it makes complete sense for collaborative partnerships between the state and private agencies, even when those private agencies have missions and identities larger than the mission of the government program in question. It didn’t matter if the private agency ALSO provided religious services and ministry as long as the secular goal was met.

This is no longer good enough for secularists of the mindset Evi has adopted. These latter folks see the government as a totally separate entity and have made the assumption that “de facto atheism” is what is meant by “separation of church and state.” In this view, government money (no longer seen as as much the money of religious people who pay into the system as that of secularists, but as "government money, as if it magically appeared somehow) must never be spent on anything remotely related to religious purposes, even if the ministry in question ALSO achieves the secular goal of a government program and is offered based on need without regard to religious affiliation.

This was first achieved in education where religious people are forced to pay into the public education system the same as secularists. But if they want their children educated in a faith environment instead of in the state schools where de facto atheism is taught (look up ‘de facto’ before arguing), they must forfeit ALL of the money paid into the public school system and pay the burden of private schooling entirely themselves in addition to the taxes they already paid. They refuse to acknowledge this as a form of stealth taxation on people of faith. And now they’ve come for health care and universities. No surprise, really. At least it shouldn’t be to anybody paying any attention in the last 50 years.

 

[EviPolevhia]

This is no longer good enough for secularists of the mindset Evi has adopted. These latter folks see the government as a totally separate entity and have made the assumption that “de facto atheism” is what is meant by “separation of church and state.” In this view, government money (no longer seen as as much the money of religious people who pay into the system as that of secularists, but as "government money, as if it magically appeared somehow) must never be spent on anything remotely related to religious purposes, even if the ministry in question ALSO achieves the secular goal of a government program and is offered based on need without regard to religious affiliation.

Except that’s not true. I’m entirely ok with the Government spending money on Religious institutions. So long as the same restrictions and benefits can apply to all the same organizations. Example being religious hospitals treated like other hospitals, religious charities treated like other charities. I’m in favor of zero deviation from how other groups are regulated and handled. Is this position too complicated to grasp? I thought I’ve stated this before?