Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

[JRKH]

What everyone here seems to lose sight of is simply this, individuals who have health insurance that provides contraceptive coverage as a benefit, have the choice to use the benefit or not.

As “fix” says above, no one is losing sight of this. But the issue is not about contraception, it is about religious freedom and the government trying to force the Church (and other Christians) to act against their conscience

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t believe in nuclear weapons, but I still have to pay taxes that are used to build these monstrosities.

This is not a discussion on taxes. Had the government decided to pay for contraceptives out of tax revenue, the Church-related organizations likely would still complain but certainly would not threaten to cancel health insurance as they are doing now.

Our new health insurance laws are not forcing anyone to use birth control or to have an abortion. I think that our Church leaders should stop trying to use secular law to enforce their dictates onto the general population.

The exact opposite is happening here. Politicians are using secular law to force religious organizations to materially support things which they believe to be inherently wrong.

Other religions have legitimately different viewpoints about abortion and birth control. Scripture does not support the idea that abortion is murder. See Exodus 21:22. According to the Law of Moses the penalty for causing an involuntary abortion is just a monetary fine. None of those 613 Laws prohibit voluntary pregancy termination even though that practice was recorded in ancient Egypt at the time that the Hebrews were enslaved there.

The same law prohibits relations between a man and woman in the first part of the month. The time they are allowed back together, she would be at her most fertile time.

I further believe that all the ranting by Church leaders on this issue is really nothing more than a smokescreen which diverts attention from the real issues of aggressive war, nuclear weapons,

False assertions. The Church has serious objections to both of these. Didn’t you get the memo about the Catholic Church pleading Pres. Bush to leave Iraq alone?

and unilateral disarmament.

That is foolish for a secular state. The Church wisely leaves the decision of how to defend the secular state to the state itself. She only encourages that it be the minimum necessary to maintain peace.

Our great Teacher, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef, provided us with the perfect example as to how to deal with enemies. He refused to fight and paid a terrible price as a result. His followers should give up warfare and accept the consequences.

He fought at every turn. He vocally condemned the false teachers and religious authorities of the day. He physically overturned the tables of those who were profiting from Temple worship. The price He paid was one He willingly sought and was proven victor when He became “firstborn from among the dead.”

 

[Munus43]

@ JRKH - Many posts in this forum refer to tax dollars being used to provide contraceptive insurance benefits. My point, it is a financial win for insurance companies and will not need tax dollars. Capiche?

@ JRKH - Popularity can provide hope for improvement or adjustment.

@ JRKH - Statistics may not be able to change the Church’s teachings but reality can be sobering and instructive.

@ JRKH - No one is doomed to hell. God loves all his children even those who can’t find the light. I was referring to remarks made in earlier posts. I didn’t use the “Quote” because I haven’t mastered that one yet.

@JimG - Institutions are just that . . . . companies . . . . organized groups that often are run by individuals of various beliefs. Catholic institutions employ people of different religions. If an institution accepts public funding and employs people of different religions, then yes, they should abide by the mandate. They will not abandon their religion but will give the beneficiaries the right to choose their own path.

 

[MorningSong51]

Only problem with taking birth control for medical reasons - and I’ll give one example: endometriosis, stopping these pills will cause the symptoms of endometriosis to return and another, if you do get pregnant - endometriosis, still can return back after the pregnancy. Also, and not to step on your toes, birth control hormones are the hormone therapy that is least likely to cause bad side effects. For this reason, many women can use them for years. Other hormone therapies can only be used for several months to 2 years. Ovarian cancer risk is higher in women who have endometriosis. Using birth control hormones for 5 or more years lowers this risk. Danazol may increase ovarian cancer risk.

Women should check with their physicians to seek out other alternatives that will work for them - and the one that I used was covered under my health insurance, at the time. The insurance company, didn’t like it because of the cost, but it was covered. Also, especially with OB/Gyn, check with the rectory at your church or with the women within your parish, to get their personal intake - and that the physician is complying with the church doctrine.

If I may interject here just briefly and with respect…

On these boards, by their very public nature, we are limited to sharing and upholding the documented Church teachings. In other words, all we can do is uphold what is “normative” in Catholic teaching. This can sometimes sound harsh, dogmatic, unfeeling etc.
BUT…
We cannot really know and understand the great many variables and nuances that go into a specific issue being dealt with by very specific and unique individuals. We cannot, on the public board) have the kind of deep, personal, private conversation necessary to really begin to understand another over time. That is what pastor’s, councilors, doctors, and spiritual directors are for.

My point here being this. When a person has concerns that relate to their specific circumstance, health issue, marriage, etc and so forth…They need to take these concerns to their pastor. The need to talk things over honestly, openly, and prayerfully with him, or whomever he recommends. Then, after some time to really sort through the various issues and combinations of issues, the person needs to be guided privately by their pastor’s advice. AND…This is the key in this matter…Privately.

By privately I mean that, the determination arrived at remains between you, your councilor/pastor and your spouse - period. This is especially true if you have received some sort of dispensation from your pastor - for whatever reason.
The problem occurs when some very personal and unique “dispensation” is spread around and, instead of being something very private, morphs into “Father so-and-so says it’s alright to use the pill”…

Bottom line is - Always start from the normative teaching…If there is cause to consider something outside the “norm” make an appointment to speak with your pastor and, as we often suggest here at CAF, be guided by his (name removed by moderator)ut. BUT then be very quiet about it.

Peace
James

Again, thank you for your post, I meant to correct another poster’s comments about the length of time someone can be on the pills but for medical reasons, only and why…

Original posted by: oneofmany

That would need to be answered by a Catholic doctor. BUT if a woman is taking it for years, it has to be for birth control.

I know it can be prescribed for many things, even to clear up acne but I don’t think it needs to be taken for years and years. It should be for a temporary problem and taken care of fairly fast. If one needs to take it for years I am sure there are other meds for the issue.

 

[PJM]

=juliee;8942089]Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

Washington, DC – The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-revises-mandate-free-abortion-causing-drugs-for-women/

***NO! He just used the backdoor! :tsktsk:

All Catholic Institutions STILL MUST PAY the prenumims to the “fall-guys” insurencance companies; thus both Oboma and that Church retain the same problem.

Cardinal designate Doaln; head of the USCCB has vowed to fight the mandate in court. I suspect some states may do likewise?***

God Bless,
Pat

 

[iloveangels]

***NO! He just used the backdoor! :tsktsk:

All Catholic Institutions STILL MUST PAY the prenumims to the “fall-guys” insurencance companies; thus both Oboma and that Church retain the same problem.

Cardinal designate Doaln; head of the USCCB has vowed to fight the mandate in court. I suspect some states may do likewise?***

God Bless,
Pat

27 states and many other groups have filed lawsuits against Obamacare for constitutionality charges. There is a massive challenge to Obamacare going to the Supreme Court March 26-28.

IN addition, there are bills in the United States congress to forbid the charging of these mandates and protect our rights to religion. They are:

House Resolution 1179 - Respect for Rights of Conscience Act 2011

Senate Bill 1467 - Respect for Rights of Conscience Act 2011

The reason that there is one in each place like that is so that they can be worked and joined after passing to save time.

PLEASE WRITE OR CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND TELL THEM TO VOTE FOR THESE BILLS.

 

[MorningSong51]

What everyone here seems to lose sight of is simply this, individuals who have health insurance that provides contraceptive coverage as a benefit, have the choice to use the benefit or not.

As “fix” says above, no one is losing sight of this. But the issue is not about contraception, it is about religious freedom and the government trying to force the Church (and other Christians) to act against their conscience

What I find interesting in this is how everyone has lost light of the very simple fact that the simplest, safest, and most sure method of unwanted pregnancy is Abstinence!!!
It is s method used for many centuries with good result but today, no one wants to even consider that.

I remember years ago, when “the pill” first came out, someone said that the best pill for birth control was aspirin. “Take two aspirin and hold them firmly between the knees”…

Oh - Please…Do try to make accurate statements. It works so much better.
No one is “doomed to hell” unless they die in unrepentant Mortal Sin…so certainly there are MANY Catholics (myself included) who have used ABC in the past but have repented, confessed and been absolved and are therefore not, “doomed regardless of how good they’ve been”.

And this statistic effects the Church’s teaching HOW???

Popularity does not make it right.

So - Should we simply stop pro-creating simply because it’s cheaper not to have kinds???
What kind of logic is this???:whacky::doh2:

Agree, this isn’t very good logic when it can be just as costly for woman, who - and while (now) older - decide to start a family, to go off the pill. Again, the choice to have a family is a couple’s choice and not an individual’s choice nor is it the governments. It does cost the insurance company money to add this plan to the policy, by the way. How much, I’m not sure. However, they must feel in the long run…that woman will choose the alternatives and I hope that’s not the choice. I don’t want to run with this issue, but the choices that a case worker gave to me - of either a full or nothing, will not give woman a choice to have children and the physician, who do want to do further testing - will not be guaranteed because of this option. Research in this area of woman health should be a guarantee - for better options!

 

[iloveangels]

Perhaps if Catholic Charities, the Catholic Hospital Association and the bishops and nuns hadn’t gotten into bed with the government those many years ago, we would not be fighting for our religious freedom today.

It would be nice if the leadership in the USA at least believed in and followed the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Instead they voted for social programs over the unborn. And government enforced giving is not charity it is stealing.

I thought sisters weren’t supposed to get in bed with anybody. I thought they were supposed to help the Church.

 

[iloveangels]

Please write to your representatives and senators in Congress. See the links, post #74, previous page.

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps if Catholic Charities, the Catholic Hospital Association and the bishops and nuns hadn’t gotten into bed with the government those many years ago, we would not be fighting for our religious freedom today.

It would be nice if the leadership in the USA at least believed in and followed the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Instead they voted for social programs over the unborn. And government enforced giving is not charity it is stealing.

Miriam,
I absolutely agree. And it isn’t just Catholic leaders who allied themselves with progressives. There are plenty of Lutheran leaders who have, too. The question now is, what do we do to stop it, and I applaud the efforts of the USCCB to stem the tide.

Jon

 

[JimG]

Let’s see. The diocesan chancery office is the office of the local bishop. The bishop as the head of the local diocese is responsible for presenting faithfully Church teaching, handing it down from the apostles.

Now the Church has taught, and still teaches, and will always teach, that artificial contraception, sterilization, and the use of abortion inducing drugs is morally wrong.

Many dioceses self insure. Now here is their dillema.

The Church teaches that these things are wrong. At the same time, it tells its employees, here is your insurance coverage which will cover these morally wrong things.

The local Catholic diocese can stop being Catholic, which is an impossibility, or it can simply drop all insurance coverage, for which it will be fined. It will be fined for remaining Catholic.

Not a violation of religious liberty? Give me a break.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I thought you guys might have a problem with birth control too. Not so, eh? Interesting.
If they get away with this, wait til you see what’s next.

How is this an answer to my post?

 

[MorningSong51]

There is more than one level of evil occurring in this mandate. Unquestionably, Obama has intruded upon the free exercise of religion. He did so, after assuring Archbishop Dolan that religious fundamantals would not be infringed upon. He lied.
The administration has focussed this battle upon the “right” to contraception, an alleged women’s reproductive right, whatever that means. God alone gave women the ability to reproduce by way of His devine creation and the sacrament of marriage. I have examined our founding documents at great length throughout the course of my 35 year law practice, and have found a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am not able to locate the right to reproduce that is supposedly guaranteed in the Constitution - perhaps I have an out of date version of that document. in Griswald v Connecticut The Supreme Court found a right to privacy when they determined that contraception must be made open and available. They did not order We the People to provide them for free.
Obama has sophistically presented RU 486 as a contraception method, niot the abortion medication that it is, killing a baby.
The administrati9n has decidedd to divide us, women whose “rights” to contraception are being fought for by the benevolent Obama and the evil church with their desire to subjugate and supress women by challenging the mandate. the issue of violation of the First Amendment has been swept under the rug, particularly by the main stream media, and is being presented as a womens rights issue. Since most Catholics do not abide by Pope Paul’s stand on contraception, the administration knew that they would win thi battle so long as they could control the issue. They have done so and they have already won.
The scope and magnitude of evil of this president is frightening.

The administration has focused this battle upon the “right” to contraception, an alleged women’s reproductive right, whatever that means.

Alleged women’s reproductive rights - those in present and future (stated or described to be such; (presumed). You can’t anticipate what women choices will be in the future, nor can one make that determination. Again, opening up research grants to this part of the medical division will help bring a “better” alternative to woman health issues (and I think, one has already been suggested) and will foster “healthier” family planning within the scope of religious doctrine - a better teaching method, is a strong moral lesson for mothers that can be handed down to their daughters. Whatever parents decide together as a family will normally be handed down to their children - alleged sons and daughters of the future.

I understand what the issue is bringing to the church but even so, and to keep this mind - these medical options will “not” be available at first. The insurance companies, will rely on that being “First” choice and will deny any other alternatives that might be opened to woman and Catholic physicians - especially those physicians, who will “not” be conformist to the health care law, and will be paying a high penalty if they don’t conform- also… The church is facing this and many doctors and nurses and staff - again, this will spiral all the way down to the patients, it is all the way across the board.

 

[iloveangels]

How is this an answer to my post?

How was your post about Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women? Which is the title of this thread.

It wasn’t.

The mandate wasn’t revised at all. The original mandate, written in Aug 2011, was the one they finalized.

From the USCCB Blog:

“1. The rule that created the uproar has not changed at all, but was finalized as is. Friday evening, after a day of touting meaningful changes in the mandate, HHS issued a regulation finalizing the rule first issued in August 2011, “without change.” So religious employers dedicated to serving people of other faiths are still not exempt as “religious employers.” Indeed, the rule describes them as “non-exempt.””

usccbmedia.blogspot.com/

BTW, virtually every bishop and every cardinal in the country is protesting this mandate. Most of the bishops have statements on diocesan webpages. I’ll bet you can find yours if you go to your diocesan webpage.

 

[MorningSong51]

How is this an answer to my post?

According to the Law of Moses the penalty for causing an involuntary abortion is just a monetary fine. None of those 613 Laws prohibit voluntary pregnancy termination even though that practice was recorded in ancient Egypt at the time that the Hebrews were enslaved there.

A message back to you: (and this is off topic - :console: ou.org/shabbat/5766/rsacks/bo66.htm, read about the tenth plague, “Noahide covenant in the words “He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”.”—read from that part of the article)

A second case recorded in parashat Mishpatim, is in Exodus 21:22-23. There the Bible relates: “V’chee yee’nah’tzoo ah’nah’shim, v’nahg’foo ee’shah harah, v’yahtz’oo y’lah’deh’hah v’lo yih’yeh ah’sohn, ah’nohsh yay’ah’naysh kah’ah’sher yah’sheet ah’lahv bah’ahl ha’ee’shah, v’na’tahn bif’lee’lim,” If men fight and they collide with a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but there will be no fatality, he shall surely be punished as the husband of the woman shall cause to be assessed against him, and he shall pay it by order of judges. But if there shall be a fatality, then you shall give life for a life.

In this instance, the commentators assume that both men were trying to kill one another. In the course of their struggle, the pregnant woman came by, and a blow, which was intended for one of the disputants, struck her. Although the blow did not kill the woman, it did cause her to lose her child. The rabbis rule in this case, that since no homicide was intended, the loss of the pregnancy may be compensated by monetary payment. In contrast to a life for a life, the Torah demands only monetary compensation for the fetus. It is from this scenario that Jewish law derives that a fetus is not to be regarded as a full-fledged human being, and that abortion should not be considered murder. Also derived from this, is the halakhic conclusion that a mother’s life, which is a definite life, always takes precedence over the potential life of a fetus. Thus, a pregnancy that threatens a mother’s life may be legally terminated.

Professor Moshe Greenberg has written insightfully, “The guilt of a murderer is infinite, because the murdered life is invaluable. By contrast, the Torah never requires the death penalty for crimes against property. In Biblical law, life and property are incommensurable; taking of life can not be made up for by any amount of property, nor can any property offense be considered as amounting to the value of a life.” Although other near-Eastern societies permitted the family of the murdered to accept monetary settlement from the murderer, the Torah code strictly forbids such payments.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888, the great Bible commentator and leader of German Jewry) offers a penetrating analysis on the subject. Rabbi Hirsch points out that the verse in Exodus 21:22, mandates that the husband shall, together with the court of law, determine how much of a fine is placed upon the perpetrator who killed the fetus. In that instance, the Torah states, “ V’na’tahn bif’lee’lim,” that the husband receives payment as the judges determine.

Rabbi Hirsch then notes that the very next verse, Exodus 21:23 states that, “V’im ah’sohn yih’yeh,” and if fatal results ensue, where the pregnant woman indeed dies, “V’nah’tah’tah nefesh tah’chaht na’fesh,” then you shall give a life for a life. Rabbi Hirsch interprets this to mean that the Jewish “community” is responsible for giving a life for a life. Rabbi Hirsch notes that the verse does not state that one should “take” a life for a life, but “give” or give up a life for a life. According to Rabbi Hirsch’s astute insight, capital punishment is not revenge, but rather restitution. Human life belongs to G-d and only to G-d. As G-d’s representatives on this earth, the community and its courts of law have the responsibility to give up a life (that of the murderer) for the life that was taken. Quite unexpectedly, Rabbi Hirsch makes certain to emphasize that even the death of the murderer is to be regarded as a communal loss.

In other ancient civilizations, those who came from noble families were almost always able to be excused from punishment. Often, murder charges against the upper class or nobility would never be brought, or the victim’s family would be compensated by the payment of cash or livestock. By asserting that only the actual perpetrator may be punished for such a crime (Deuteronomy 24:6), Judaism revolutionized the idea of the sanctity of human life and the penal code. No matter how important, no matter how noble, no one may buy their way out of punishment.

Parashat Mishpatim stands as the foundation of enlightened law, and reflects truths that are, in many instances, light-years ahead of other judicial systems.

May you be blessed.
rabbibuchwald.njop.org/

 

[SonCatcher]

A second case recorded in parashat Mishpatim, is in Exodus 21:22-23. There the Bible relates: “V’chee yee’nah’tzoo ah’nah’shim, v’nahg’foo ee’shah harah, v’yahtz’oo y’lah’deh’hah v’lo yih’yeh ah’sohn, ah’nohsh yay’ah’naysh kah’ah’sher yah’sheet ah’lahv bah’ahl ha’ee’shah, v’na’tahn bif’lee’lim,” If men fight and they collide with a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but there will be no fatality, he shall surely be punished as the husband of the woman shall cause to be assessed against him, and he shall pay it by order of judges. But if there shall be a fatality, then you shall give life for a life.

In this instance, the commentators assume that both men were trying to kill one another. In the course of their struggle, the pregnant woman came by, and a blow, which was intended for one of the disputants, struck her. Although the blow did not kill the woman, it did cause her to lose her child. The rabbis rule in this case, that since no homicide was intended, the loss of the pregnancy may be compensated by monetary payment. In contrast to a life for a life, the Torah demands only monetary compensation for the fetus. It is from this scenario that Jewish law derives that a fetus is not to be regarded as a full-fledged human being, and that abortion should not be considered murder…

The OT also had rules concerning divorce while Jesus plainly teaches in the Gospel that to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. Thus some laws given in the Old Testament are abrogated in the New. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, which has been teaching that the unborn life is to be rigorously defended from its conception. Thus, it stands to reason that the regulation cited above is similarly superseded.

 

[MorningSong51]

The OT also had rules concerning divorce while Jesus plainly teaches in the Gospel that to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. Thus some laws given in the Old Testament are abrogated in the New. God sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, which has been teaching that the unborn life is to be rigorously defended from its conception. Thus, it stands to reason that the regulation cited above is similarly superseded.

Hi Son Catcher;

Highlighting more information to Jeffrey Erwin in his original post:

Originally Posted by jeffrey erwin View Post
How is this an answer to my post?

Originally posted by Jeffrey Erwin:
According to the Law of Moses the penalty for causing an involuntary abortion is just a monetary fine. None of those 613 Laws prohibit voluntary pregnancy termination even though that practice was recorded in ancient Egypt at the time that the Hebrews were enslaved there.

In Biblical law, life and property are incommensurable; taking of life can not be made up for by any amount of property, nor can any property offense be considered as amounting to the value of a life.” Although other near-Eastern societies permitted the family of the murdered to accept monetary settlement from the murderer, the Torah code strictly forbids such payments.

No matter how important, no matter how noble, no one may buy their way out of punishment.

and in the other article,

the tenth plague was the enactment of retributive justice, as if heaven was saying to the Egyptians: You committed, or supported, or passively accepted the murder of innocent children.

 

[Munus43]

@ JimG: "Many dioceses self insure. Now here is their dillema.

The Church teaches that these things are wrong. At the same time, it tells its employees, here is your insurance coverage which will cover these morally wrong things.

The local Catholic diocese can stop being Catholic, which is an impossibility, or it can simply drop all insurance coverage, for which it will be fined. It will be fined for remaining Catholic.

Not a violation of religious liberty? Give me a break."

Why would the Catholic diocese be fined if it dropped insurance coverage? It can do as other organizations have done, give their employees a stipend and let them purchase their own coverage. Speaking from experience, providing health insurance for our employees has been extremely difficult in this economic climate. We have investigated alternatives, but if we had to drop insurance benefits we would not be fined. Am I missing something here? I may be. Again I will say as I have previously, if an organization employs those of different beliefs and/or use public funds to operate, then yes, they should be held to the mandate. Let the people follow their own conscience.

 

[JRKH]

Let’s see. The diocesan chancery office is the office of the local bishop. The bishop as the head of the local diocese is responsible for presenting faithfully Church teaching, handing it down from the apostles.

Now the Church has taught, and still teaches, and will always teach, that artificial contraception, sterilization, and the use of abortion inducing drugs is morally wrong.

Many dioceses self insure. Now here is their dillema.

The Church teaches that these things are wrong. At the same time, it tells its employees, here is your insurance coverage which will cover these morally wrong things.

The local Catholic diocese can stop being Catholic, which is an impossibility, or it can simply drop all insurance coverage, for which it will be fined. It will be fined for remaining Catholic.

Not a violation of religious liberty? Give me a break.

Or as EWTN’s CEO said tonight on EWTN Live, the administration is saying that you can preach all you want but you can’t live it…:dts:

 

[Mickey]

I think it would be nice if the bishop of Rome chimed in.