Timothy Cardinal Dolan vows to fight President all the way to Supreme Court over birth control mandate

  • Thread starter Thread starter catharina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catharina

Guest
Timothy Cardinal Dolan vows to fight President all the way to Supreme Court over birth control mandate

Read more: nydailynews.com/new-york/catholics-sue-obama-birth-control-mandate-article-1.1081944#ixzz1vu0Jb2BE

"ALBANY — Timothy Cardinal Dolan is turning to a higher power to squash President Obama’s mandate that religious employers provide workers with birth control coverage.

Dolan led 43 Catholic institutions across the country in filing 12 federal lawsuits to spike the Obama administration’s requirement — and he’s prepared to battle “all the way [to the Supreme Court] if we have to,” his spokesman Joseph Zwilling said.

“This is fundamental,” Zwilling added. "It’s not a Catholic issue. It’s not really a religious issue. It’s an American issue.”
Catholic leaders are apoplectic the contraception rule will take effect as scheduled on Aug. 1.

“Time is running out, and our precious ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now,” Dolan said.

Dolan said Obama’s contraception mandate is contrary to the “deeply held and constitutionally-protected religious beliefs” of Catholic organizations. … ."
 
The administration is trying to pretend that the lawsuits haven’t been filed. It is trying to ignore the issue. So are the major news outlets. HHS is hoping that the mandate will go into effect in August as a fait accompli and Catholics will fade quietly back into the woodwork. But they won’t. The administration is hoping to gut the First Amendment without anyone really noticing.
 
Obama is trying to make the Catholic Church provide abortion-inducing drugs and surgical sterilizations, facts that are ignored in the “contraception” issue, as it is deliberately mischaracterized in the media.

Pray that the Supreme Court declares the entire law unconstitutional in June.
 
I wish everyone in the world was of the mindset to be happy with a theocracy under Rome. Think of the utopia that could be built with Christ’s Word as the foundation! Sadly we’re just going to fight and kill one another until the day comes when Christ brings judgement to the world. What a sad existence humans live when they deny Christ.
 
_Abyssinia said:
How will the Obama side be able to argue in court that it is acceptable for the admin that there is a exemption for the Amish and those with the Christian Care Ministry but for nobody else? It is nonsensical. How can they defend unequal treatment of religious groups and employers?
Click to expand...
There is no limit to how lawyers can twist words so that white becomes black, and black becomes white.
The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we KEEP saying NO.
 
If there is a religious objection, the insurance company would be required to step in and offer the birth control services at no cost to the employee.
Dolan and the Catholic groups argue the exemption does not go far enough — and insist it’s a government overreach on their constitution rights.
“Does The First Amendment of the Constitution mean what it says?” Zwilling added. “You can’t get more basic or more important than that."
Click to expand...
OK, so I have to ask, why doesn’t the accommodation go far enough?

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
OK, so I have to ask, why doesn’t the accommodation go far enough?

Jim
Click to expand...
The fact is they are still providing the coverage, whether they pay specifically for the objectionable treatments or not. The only acceptable way to ensure everyone has access to such coverage would be if Obama mandated that anyone employed by a Catholic institution be allowed to request from any insurance provider for free coverage. This way those who want it can still be covered for free but it is not included in the coverage provided by the Catholic institution. Just to be clear, I don’t particularaly like this idea because I’m sure it will mean more hikes in healthcare rates etc, but it is the only way to accomplish what the government wants without violating the right to religious freedom of Catholics. 🤷
 
thewanderer said:
The fact is they are still providing the coverage, whether they pay specifically for the objectionable treatments or not. The only acceptable way to ensure everyone has access to such coverage would be if Obama mandated that anyone employed by a Catholic institution be allowed to request from any insurance provider for free coverage. This way those who want it can still be covered for free but it is not included in the coverage provided by the Catholic institution. Just to be clear, I don’t particularaly like this idea because I’m sure it will mean more hikes in healthcare rates etc, but it is the only way to accomplish what the government wants without violating the right to religious freedom of Catholics. 🤷
Click to expand...
But the accommodation doesn’t require the institution to pay for the coverage. Only those institutions which have private insurance, the insurance company will pay the coverage, not the institution.

Jim
 
qui_est_ce said:
HHS has the authority to force the insurance companies to provide something for free? :eek:
Click to expand...
They have the authority to provide it for free, when they are getting subsidized via the government.

Besides, it’s probably the insurance companies who pushed for the mandate in the first place.

They’d much rather pay for contraception than pay for pregnancies and child birth.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
But the accommodation doesn’t require the institution to pay for the coverage. Only those institutions which have private insurance, the insurance company will pay the coverage, not the institution.

Jim
Click to expand...
Then whats the problem with it being a completely seperate plan funded by the insurance companies like I suggested? Why do people think the only thing that matters is who pays for what? The Catholic Institutes will still be forced to provide insurance coverage that violates their conscience. Like I said, the only way to ensure their employees have such coverage without violating the employers right to religious freedom is for the insurance company to set up a seperate plan for the objectionable coverage. If they are already ok with covering it for free, why is it such a big deal to set up the coverage under a seperate plan so that the employers rights arenn’t violated?
 
thewanderer said:
Then whats the problem with it being a completely seperate plan funded by the insurance companies like I suggested? … Like I said, the only way to ensure their employees have such coverage without violating the employers right to religious freedom is for the insurance company to set up a seperate plan for the objectionable coverage.
Click to expand...
Why is this such a big deal at all? B/C pills are cheap. If they are so important, let the employee get them from the drug store.
If they are already ok with covering it for free, why is it such a big deal to set up the coverage under a seperate plan so that the employers rights arenn’t violated?
Click to expand...
First off, TNSTAAFL. Second. Money is fungible; no matter how you look at it, the employer and employee both pay into the common pool from which benefits are paid out. The employer plus everyone in the plan pays for everyone’s benefits. As the bishops said, the øbama compromise is nothing but a bookkeeping gimmick. Capisce?
“Nø, they can’t.”
 
sedonaman said:
Why is this such a big deal at all? B/C pills are cheap. If they are so important, let the employee get them from the drug store.

First off, TNSTAAFL. Second. Money is fungible; no matter how you look at it, the employer and employee both pay into the common pool from which benefits are paid out. The employer plus everyone in the plan pays for everyone’s benefits. As the bishops said, the øbama compromise is nothing but a bookkeeping gimmick. Capisce?
“Nø, they can’t.”
Click to expand...
If you take the time to read my earlier post I am not particularly arguing for this situation. I don’t think it would be the best, but if the government is dead set on providing free contraception, abortificients, and sterilizations, why can’t they do it in a way that won’t violate the right to religious freedom of those who object to such practices? ie, don’t force employers to include it in your plan. It doesn’t matter who is supposedly paying for it. Thats not the point.
 
sedonaman said:
It certainly is. That’s why the bishops oppose it.
Click to expand...
But they’re not paying for it, so the argument is confusing for anyone following the story objectively.

I feel this is a fight of egos, more than anything else.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
But they’re not paying for it, so the argument is confusing for anyone following the story objectively.

I feel this is a fight of egos, more than anything else.

Jim
Click to expand...
A fight of egos? Every bishop in the United States? Forty-three lawsuits? The USCCB saying we will not comply?

I would say it is rather a fight to preserve religious liberty before it is too late.
 
JimG said:
A fight of egos? Every bishop in the United States? Forty-three lawsuits? The USCCB saying we will not comply?

I would say it is rather a fight to preserve religious liberty before it is too late.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, just asking the question.

Again, the argument doesn’t jive with the fact that religious institutions have been given the accommodation, but now Cardinal Dolan says, it isn’t enough.

Making things even more confusing, various diocese around the nation already purchase health insurance which covers abortions, contraception and sterilizations.

They didn’t complain then, why now?

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top