Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

[willnotcomply]

Is it wrong that I thank God for the chance to defend my faith? This whole battle is kind of…exciting!

 

[JimG]

It will be an uphill battle. Americans have been conditioned to think that nearly everything in life must be regulated, mandated, controlled, with the government bureaucracy handling every detail. It is the polar opposite of the Catholic value of subsidiarity, but that’s something that most Catholics have never been taught.

 

[Munus43]

"Under the health care law, most employers will be required to provide health insurance coverage. Under the HHS mandate, that health insurance coverage must include contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs with no copays.

And of course, complying with the mandate will require Catholic employers to cease to be Catholic. Or they can pay the fine for dropping the insurance. That’s a violation of religious freedom."

@ JimG - Because of this difficult economic climate, providing health care coverage has become cost prohibitive for many employers. Your statement about the health care law is inflammatory and incorrect. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. Some companies are providing a stipend to their employees which will allow them purchase their own insurance and make their own choices.

If a Catholic organization employs people of many faiths and beliefs and/or uses public funding in order to operate, then perhaps they are not Catholic anymore and should relinquish that title and abide by the mandate. If you mean, that by simply letting their employees make their own choice they will cease to be Catholic then I say, this is not so. Catholics who have used or are using contraceptives are still Catholic.

 

[SonCatcher]

SonCatcher, I’m not seeing your point. I wouldn’t count on God being particularly appeased with a cash payment, however. He has all the money he wants, I think.

Neither would I think God wants a cash payment. 2 posters were holding up a passage of the Torah as justification for the argument of “non personhood” of the unborn child. I was citing examples of how the Torah and its laws are superseded in the teachings of Christ.

 

[iloveangels]

"Under the health care law, most employers will be required to provide health insurance coverage. Under the HHS mandate, that health insurance coverage must include contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs with no copays.

And of course, complying with the mandate will require Catholic employers to cease to be Catholic. Or they can pay the fine for dropping the insurance. That’s a violation of religious freedom."

@ JimG - Because of this difficult economic climate, providing health care coverage has become cost prohibitive for many employers. Your statement about the health care law is inflammatory and incorrect. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. Some companies are providing a stipend to their employees which will allow them purchase their own insurance and make their own choices.

If a Catholic organization employs people of many faiths and beliefs and/or uses public funding in order to operate, then perhaps they are not Catholic anymore and should relinquish that title and abide by the mandate. If you mean, that by simply letting their employees make their own choice they will cease to be Catholic then I say, this is not so. Catholics who have used or are using contraceptives are still Catholic.

It’s also a matter of formal cooperation with evil. Even secular law recognizes the meaning of the term “formal cooperation.” And they’re well aware of what the church has always written about abortion being evil and not compatible with religious practice. We’ve made it very clear for centuries. It’s in the CCC published in the 90s, for instance. I am sure it’s also in the Baltimore Catechism.

There are also constitutional problems with privacy, in this case privacy of medical records. This may take down Obamacare, and if it happened this way there would be some irony involved because the privacy interpretation is exactly the part of the constitution that was used to justify Roe v Wade.

The various lawsuits proceeding through the courts against Obamacare in general and this mandate specifically are using a variety of approaches and arguments which is a very good thing. It demonstrates the problems with the law and increases our chance of getting at least part of it repealed. All it takes is one win to disable certain parts of the law and make it non-enforceable. This isn’t going to be over right away. There’s a lot going on.

There is one thing you can do right now, however. There is a bill in Congress, called the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act 2011. It will limit the damage that the HHS mandate can do to the Church and to us, no matter what the Supreme Court does. Please email or call your representatives and senators and ask them to support this law. This law already has some bipartisan support. But we need your voice!

**You can write to your representative here: writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

You can write to your senator here: senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

**

 

[Munus43]

@ iloveangels - “It’s also a matter of formal cooperation with evil.”

Evil is as evil does and is often a perception. What may be evil to one person could be a life saving choice to another.

For 30 years politicians have been talking about healthcare reform. President Obama is the first one to do something about it. The Affordable Care Act removes restrictions on pre-existing conditions, makes health care more affordable for small businesses, raises the age at which children can be on their parents’ policies, removes lifetime caps, etc. etc. With the possible exception of insurance execs, who would not want these changes?

This isn’t an informative and intelligent forum, its a political soap box.

“Captain Kirk to Scottie. Beam me up Scottie.” Over and out!

 

[iloveangels]

Evil is as evil does and is often a perception. What may be evil to one person could be a life saving choice to another.

Try this on for size, Munus.

"2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."

Catechism of the Catholic Church.

No life is saved with an abortion. Someone is always KILLED – the child. That’s the whole point of getting an abortion.

 

[JimG]

Obamacare will impose fines (or taxes?) on individuals who refuse to buy health insurance.
It will also impose fines on employers who drop health insurance–a fine for each employee.
Many employers will likely drop health insurance and elect to the pay the fines simply because they expect it will be cheaper than providing the coverage, the cost of which is expected to go up under Obamacare.

And many employers will drop the coverage because they object to the HHS mandate forcing them to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs. Because they drop coverage, they will have to pay fines. Some will provide employees with extra pay to buy their own insurance. But the employer will still have to pay fines for refusing to buy insurance that violates his conscience. And because of the fines, they may hire fewer people.

So because of this burdensome law, things could get worse when it comes to health insurance. A system which had been working pretty well will be made burdensome, more convoluted and expensive because of fines and mandates, and pages upon pages of new regulations.

 

[JRKH]

It will be an uphill battle. Americans have been conditioned to think that nearly everything in life must be regulated, mandated, controlled, with the government bureaucracy handling every detail. It is the polar opposite of the Catholic value of subsidiarity, but that’s something that most Catholics have never been taught.

Yes. Americans (including American Catholics) have had it too soft for too long.

As something of a history buff I trace the surrender of our rights to 2 interconnected events, the great depression and WW II.

But if I started getting into that - we’d be way off topic…

Peace
James

 

[MorningSong51]

Neither would I think God wants a cash payment. 2 posters were holding up a passage of the Torah as justification for the argument of “non personhood” of the unborn child. I was citing examples of how the Torah and its laws are superseded in the teachings of Christ.

Hey SonCatcher - I think you’re going off on a tangent with this and not taking the article (commentary) complete as a whole but distorting it - the point being, is how can “You…Put…A…Value…On…Human…Life?” - You can’t exchange the value of a life when a mother, and out of violence, losses a child in the crossfire. The information that the original poster claim to was toward a monetary value but I think, this needed additional info/and the original text. Again, what was provided to his post was:“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.”

If you want to make a comment - please, contact the original post…er. You argument isn’t holding to the post or with the posters. The "idea “of non personhood” - is a term used to creating a self-defined definitions of personhood that are uniquely crafted ***to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law ***has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities. First, the personhood of the fetus is clearly the crucial issue for abortion, for if the fetus is not a person, abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent person: if it is, it is. All other aspects of the abortion controversy are relative to this one; e.g., women have rights — over their own bodies but not over other persons’ bodies. The law must respect a “right to privacy” but killing other persons is not a private but a public deed. Persons have a “right to life” but non-persons (e.g., cells, tissues, organs, and animals) do not.

Unborn child - Pursuant to 18 USCS § 1841, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.///Previously, an “unborn child” meant a viable fetus. The bill, as written, defines the term “unborn child” as “unborn offspring of a human being at any stage

Is there “now” a thought between the usages of terminology - and which one shall we use?
God, and you probably correct - doesn’t need a payment for the life given, just an explanation on why “the life” left, “And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.”

 

[SonCatcher]

Hey SonCatcher - I think you’re going off on a tangent with this and not taking the article (commentary) complete as a whole but distorting it - the point being, is how can “You…Put…A…Value…On…Human…Life?” - You can’t exchange the value of a life when a mother, and out of violence, losses a child in the crossfire. The information that the original poster claim to was toward a monetary value but I think, this needed additional info/and the original text. Again, what was provided to his post was:“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.”

If you want to make a comment - please, contact the original post…er. You argument isn’t holding to the post or with the posters. The "idea “of non personhood” - is a term used to creating a self-defined definitions of personhood that are uniquely crafted ***to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law ***has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities. First, the personhood of the fetus is clearly the crucial issue for abortion, for if the fetus is not a person, abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent person: if it is, it is. All other aspects of the abortion controversy are relative to this one; e.g., women have rights — over their own bodies but not over other persons’ bodies. The law must respect a “right to privacy” but killing other persons is not a private but a public deed. Persons have a “right to life” but non-persons (e.g., cells, tissues, organs, and animals) do not.

Unborn child - Pursuant to 18 USCS § 1841, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.///Previously, an “unborn child” meant a viable fetus. The bill, as written, defines the term “unborn child” as “unborn offspring of a human being at any stage

Is there “now” a thought between the usages of terminology - and which one shall we use?
God, and you probably correct - doesn’t need a payment for the life given, just an explanation on why “the life” left, “And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.”

Actually, you and Jeffrey Erwin went off on the tangent by asserting an OT regulation over the constant teaching of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. My intention is merely to assert the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church as having preeminence because of the OT’s known concessions due to “hardness of heart.”

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Quote (SunCatcher): “…the Torah and its laws are superseded in the teachings of Christ.”
I would say that this is not quite correct. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua challenged the Talmud, the rabbinic interpretation of the Torah, and replaced that interpretation with His own. The Talmud extrapolates some Laws while limiting others. For instance: Not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk also means not eating meat and dairy at the same meal, and further means that every Jewish household has to have two complete sets of cooking and eating utensils (one for meat and one for dairy.) But, according to the Talmud, “Love your neighbor as yourself” means only to love another Jew as yourself.
Our Great Rabbi elevated and extrapolated Lev: 19:18 saying things like: "Give to whoever asks, Do not judge, Do not accuse anyone of heresy, If someone demands your coat, give your shirt too,) and he criticized the Jewish leaders for burdening the poor (who, perhaps, could not easily afford all of the required cutlery.) His parable of the good Samaritan indicates that Lev 19:18 is not limited to fellow Jews. Many Gospel quotes contradict the idea that the Torah is abolished: Matt: 5:19 “…the man who keeps them (the commandments ) and teaches them will be considered great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Our Church leaders have also extrapolated certain Torah Laws. “You shall not kill” now means that destroying a certain group of human cells too small to be seen without a microscope is murder. At the same time, they have limited Lev 19:18. Ever since Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire we have been allowed, even required, to kill and maim other human beings if ordered to do so by secular authorities.
I notice in this forum many complaints about the new health insurance law preventing us from “practicing our religion.” I don’t agree. No law, no emperor, no army, no political system can limit or prevent me from loving God or my neighbor. I fail to understand how being enrolled in a health insurance plan that offers two services which I consider to be immoral limits my practice of Religion. I simply will not use those services.

 

[iloveangels]

Christ himself said, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Matthew 5:17

Jeffrey, you and you alone are not the Body of Christ, not even for yourself. The Church is the Body of Christ.

 

[SonCatcher]

Christ himself said, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Matthew 5:17

Jeffrey, you and you alone are not the Body of Christ, not even for yourself. The Church is the Body of Christ.

To expand on this: “supersede” does not mean “abolish.”

Jeffrey, I am not inferring the old law was done away with. Rather, that by following the teachings of Christ as interpreted by the Church He established, we follow the law more perfectly

 

[MorningSong51]

Actually, you and Jeffrey Erwin went off on the tangent by asserting an OT regulation over the constant teaching of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. My intention is merely to assert the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church as having preeminence because of the OT’s known concessions due to “hardness of heart.”

Not really, correcting or giving additional info (as to give the citation, to the original text) doesn’t actually mean someone is off on a tangent. Making distorting remarks from the discussion and hand picking certain member’s, someone who was not directly involved with the original - could. Again, this is really not the place to hold the discuss - contact the original poster, thanks!

 

[MorningSong51]

To expand on this: “supersede” does not mean “abolish.”

Jeffrey, I am not inferring the old law was done away with. Rather, that by following the teachings of Christ as interpreted by the Church He established, we follow the law more perfectly

Re: Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women