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

[regression]

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.

My understanding is the exemption only applies if, Catholic hospitals, for example, only employee Catholics and server Catholics. Obviously this is not the case and thus for all practical purposes the “exemption” doesn’t apply.

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?

I wasn’t aware this is happening. Does anyone have examples of what Catholic hospitals are doing in states such as Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin? According to this, those states have no exemption currently. The way it reads, it sounds like Catholic hospitals in those state have to provide contraception coverage currently???

whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/01/health-reform-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions

I do find a lot of talk from both sides hard to follow at times.

 

[Dawnia]

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

 

[JimG]

Cardinal Dolan explains the Church’s position to Charlie Rose on CBS:
patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/05/cardinal-dolan-on-cbs-this-morning-with-charlie-rose.html

 

[catharina]

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

Tell the forum, please, the names of those Catholic dioceses.

 

[thewanderer]

It certainly is. That’s why the bishops oppose it.

Of course it would be wrong for Catholics to pay for it. My point is that that isn’t the only problem with the mandate. Which in fact can help those who don’t believe that the institutes will have to pay for the insurance see why it is an attack on religious freedom. While less talked about, the more fundamental problem is that the plan purchased by the employer will cover the problematic treatments. Whether the employer technically pays for it or not doesn’t matter, he is still being forced to buy coverage which will include the objectionable treatment and so is being forced to violate his conscience and is having his right to religious freedom violated.

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

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. … ."

If Catholic institutions don’t want to deal with the Federal government that is fine. However they should not take a single dime of taxpayer money for their institutions. That includes hospitals, universities and charity programs. The Church can’t have it both ways.

 

[irishpatrick]

It make absolutedly NO difference who pays for it–the probem is that the Church should not be forced to provide insurance that has coverage for things that are contrary to its teachings. The Church should be able to offe insurance modified to exclude those coverages.

 

[sedonaman]

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

As employers, they are paying for it. As I stated, both employer and employee contribute to the insurance pool from which benefits are paid. The insurance companies contribute nothing; they only manage the pool. The only reason the argument is confusing to some is that they think the insurance companies have a bottomless pot of magic money hidden somewhere that they can draw on, and refuse to accept that the only money insurance companies have is what they get from the policy holders [employers and employees]; therefore, the policy holders are paying for ***all ***benefits. Capisce?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Tell the forum, please, the names of those Catholic dioceses.

My dioceses.

They use private health insurance companies to insure employees.

Those companies pay for abortion and contraception.

It’s been this way since Romney care was put in place.

Also, see here;

thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/09/422281/large-catholic-institutions-offered-contraception-even-before-mandated-to-do-so/?mobile=nc

Jim

 

[FloridaJoan]

As employers, they are paying for it. As I stated, both employer and employee contribute to the insurance pool from which benefits are paid. The insurance companies contribute nothing; they only manage the pool. The only reason the argument is confusing to some is that they think the insurance companies have a bottomless pot of magic money hidden somewhere that they can draw on, and refuse to accept that the only money insurance companies have is what they get from the policy holders [employers and employees]; therefore, the policy holders are paying for ***all ***benefits. Capisce?

Sedonaman:

WHY is it so difficult for some people to grasp this ! What are they thinking ? Are they really so naive ? sheesh ( open palm to forehead !)

 

[catharina]

My dioceses.

They use private health insurance companies to insure employees.

Those companies pay for abortion and contraception.

It’s been this way since Romney care was put in place.

Also, see here;

thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/09/422281/large-catholic-institutions-offered-contraception-even-before-mandated-to-do-so/?mobile=nc

Jim

Would you please NAME the dioceses?

“My dioceses” means nothing to me. Thank you.

 

[catharina]

If Catholic institutions don’t want to deal with the Federal government that is fine. However they should not take a single dime of taxpayer money for their institutions. That includes hospitals, universities and charity programs. The Church can’t have it both ways.

So, similarly, Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican (etc.) institutions
should not accept any moneys from the Feds unless they
bow down to certain demands: e.g., homosexual adoption, etc.?

 

[sedonaman]

Sedonaman:

WHY is it so difficult for some people to grasp this ! … ? …

Bill Cosby says it is “brain damage”. I attribute it to the eternal belief that there is a free lunch.

---

“Nø, they can’t.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Would you please NAME the dioceses?

“My dioceses” means nothing to me. Thank you.

I’ll only say it’s in Massachusetts, where we have Romney Care.

In fact, I’m on Romney Care, which is nothing more than you get to buy insurance within a pool of tens of thousands of others, which makes the premiums more affordable than trying to purchase insurance on your own.

All employers who have more than 15 employees, must provide health insurance, and they must be from qualified health insurance companies. Employees can self-insure, but the cost is so much higher than purchasing from health-insurance companies, I know none that do.

Jim

 

[catharina]

I’ll only say it’s in Massachusetts, where we have Romney Care.

In fact, I’m on Romney Care, which is nothing more than you get to buy insurance within a pool of tens of thousands of others, which makes the premiums more affordable than trying to purchase insurance on your own.

All employers who have more than 15 employees, must provide health insurance, and they must be from qualified health insurance companies. Employees can self-insure, but the cost is so much higher than purchasing from health-insurance companies, I know none that do.

Jim

So you are saying that it is possible that some dioceses
might be using a form of “Romney Care” to provide insurance
for their employess?

That’s a far cry from your original statement. It was:
**various diocese around the nation already purchase
health insurance which covers abortions, contraception and sterilizations. **

Again, your orignal statement stands UNsupported by actual examples, so far.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So you are saying that it is possible that some dioceses
might be using a form of “Romney Care” to provide insurance
for their employess?

That’s a far cry from your original statement. It was:
**various diocese around the nation already purchase
health insurance which covers abortions, contraception and sterilizations. **

Again, your original statement stands UNsupported by actual examples, so far.

I provided a link to another dioceses to support my statement,

Jim

 

[catharina]

I provided a link to another dioceses to support my statement,

Jim

The link states that the Archdiocese of NY provides such coverage.
No mention of any other dioceses. It’s confusing to state a “conclusion”
without being able to provide facts backed by data. Also mentioned is
the diocese of Madison.

You say:**
“various diocese around the nation already purchase
health insurance which covers abortions, contraception and sterilizations.”**

I ask what dioceses and according to whom?
What dioceses in Massachusetts?

Also if the bishops are clearly standing against the obamaplan,
how can any Catholic say “it’s really an OK plan?”

 

[JimG]

If Catholic institutions don’t want to deal with the Federal government that is fine. However they should not take a single dime of taxpayer money for their institutions. That includes hospitals, universities and charity programs. The Church can’t have it both ways.

The HHS mandate has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an institution accepts federal funds. The mandate applies to all employers regardless of whether or not they use federal funds. If every Catholic institution in the country turned away all federal funds tomorrow, they would STILL be subject to this unconstitutional HHS mandate, which requires them to violate their conscience, cease to be Catholic, or pay fines for dropping coverage, or go out of business.

Not only that, HHS takes the position that it has not only the power to mandate morally objectionable coverage, but the power to decide who is religious enough to qualify for an exemption.

According to HHS, a Catholic institution isn’t really Catholic unless it serves only Catholics, employs only Catholics, and has it’s chief mission of spreading the Catholic faith.

But–if the Church served only Catholics–it would thereby violate its Catholic identity. The same applies to any other institution operated by any religion.

And again, federal funds have nothing whatever to do with it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

catharina

The link states that the Archdiocese of NY provides such coverage.
No mention of any other dioceses. It’s confusing to state a “conclusion”
without being able to provide facts backed by data. Also mentioned is
the diocese of Madison.

Which is two cases. I’m not going to go on a web search looking for every dioceses.

But it’s a known fact that insurance companies pay for such things and any dioceses which insures employees will end up using those companies.

You say:**
“various diocese around the nation already purchase
health insurance which covers abortions, contraception and sterilizations.”**

I ask what dioceses and according to whom?
What dioceses in Massachusetts?

Again see above.

The Archdioceses of Boston, purchases private insurance through companies here in Massachusetts, Those companies pay for abortions, birth control and sterylizations.

It’s probably why Cardinal Sean O’Malley didn’t jump on the band wagon in the lawsuit brought by other Bishops. The informatoion would be used against him.

Also, I know that my dioceses also purchases health insurance coverage from the same companies here in MA.

It gets to a point that you have to insure your employees, and they have to know, that it’s immoral to obtain and abortion and use birth control to stop pregnancy, so don’t use the coverage.

Also if the bishops are clearly standing against the obamaplan,
how can any Catholic say “it’s really an OK plan?”

What Catholic says it’s OK? Not me.

I’m just pointing out the inconsistency which is causing confusion in the Bishops position.

I’m asking why the accommodation is not acceptable, and it’s confusing why the Bishops are still going to fight against it, even when they use private insurance which cover abortions and such to cover employees?

At this point, I believe the Bishops are trying to allow the exemption for anyone who morally objects, not just religious institutions. Of course, if this is the case, they’ll lose their lawsuit.

Of course if they win, it opens another issue, what about JW’s who don’t want to pay for blood transfusions, or members of the Church of Scientology, who don’t want to pay for vaccinations for children?

Jim

 

[sedonaman]

… According to HHS, a Catholic institution isn’t really Catholic unless it serves only Catholics, employs only Catholics, and has it’s chief mission of spreading the Catholic faith. …

The last one is a gotcha! If the Church’s chief mission has to be spreading the Catholic faith in order to qualify, it would cease to be a Catholic institution because, by definition, one must spread the Catholic faith to non-Catholics, so then the Church would be serving mostly non-Catholics, violating the first requirement.

---

“Nø, they can’t.”