U.S. Bishops Reject Latest HHS ‘Accommodation’

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
From the National Catholic Register:

ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-bishops-reject-latest-hhs-accommodation/

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
It is truly stunning that the Obama administration is SO OBSESSED WITH FREE BIRTH CONTROL that they are willing to compromise the 1st Amendment, fight the Catholic Church as well as other faith groups and charities.

It’s an obsession, at this point what else could it be called? ABC, abortion drugs and sterilization are not healthcare under any sort of common usage unless Obama is now claiming pregnancy is an illness. These products are not life saving, do not IMPROVE health and in fact particularly ABC is apparently considered a cancer causing drug by the WHO…hardly a bastion of right wing nuttery. So why this particular set of products and services above all?

I just received my Human Life Review and Obama was described as an Aborto-ocratic president. Indeed.

Lisa
 
GOOD! Don’t give us a bandaid when our cut out leg off. 😉
 
Let me correct my post above lol.

*GOOD! Don’t give us a bandaid when you cut off our leg…there that makes more sense lol
 
What puzzles me is why the White House even bothers trying to accommodate the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes in no form of birth control including condoms so I’m not sure what the WH thinks will be agreed upon. The CC wants no BC so nothing is going to ever be agreed upon. They should just implement it and see what the Supreme Court says.

Mind you I’m not arguing in favor or against the BC measures. I’m just trying to see what the white house is trying to accomplish. Its like a steak restaurant trying to accommodate PETA. There will never be an accommodation because by definition an animal is killed to produce the steak.

Since most EU countries have universal health care is BC provided for free?
 
brigantine said:
What puzzles me is why the White House even bothers trying to accommodate the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes in no form of birth control including condoms so I’m not sure what the WH thinks will be agreed upon. The CC wants no BC so nothing is going to ever be agreed upon. They should just implement it and see what the Supreme Court says.

Mind you I’m not arguing in favor or against the BC measures. I’m just trying to see what the white house is trying to accomplish. Its like a steak restaurant trying to accommodate PETA. There will never be an accommodation because by definition an animal is killed to produce the steak.

Since most EU countries have universal health care is BC provided for free?
Click to expand...
The White House is not interested in accommodating the Church, they are simply trying to ram through their agenda within the bounds of the Constitution. If they can “accommodate” the Catholic Church or other regligious groups and thus not run afoul of the First Amendment they can implement their grand plan which seems to be focused on ever increasing control over our lives. It’s clear the Obama Administration, particularly Sebelius (truly one of the most uninformed, incompetent HHS Secretaries of all time) had no CLUE that by forcing ALL employers to provide birth control, abortion drugs and sterilization products they might be acting in a manner not authorized by the Constitution. When asked about this issue Sebelius looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights…not a CLUE that Freedom of Religion might be an obstacle to her anti-life agenda. Remember this woman was one of Tiller the Killer’s biggest fans and supporters. What else would we expect from someone like her?

Also please quit using the erroneous term “universal health care” when speaking of one country’s plan vis a vis another. We HAVE universal health CARE in America. We have a different payment structure than do some EU countries that have socialized medicine.

Oh and nothing is FREE, it’s just whether paid for through one’s choice or by taking OPM and distributing it to your favored groups.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
The White House is not interested in accommodating the Church, they are simply trying to ram through their agenda within the bounds of the Constitution. If they can “accommodate” the Catholic Church or other regligious groups and thus not run afoul of the First Amendment they can implement their grand plan which seems to be focused on ever increasing control over our lives.
Click to expand...
This makes sense. Although, I think they should realize they will never find a way to accommodate the CC on this. Ultimately the courts will need to decide this one way or the other. I would think it may in some circumstances violate the first amendment but I thought they would strike down the individual mandate so who knows.
LisaA said:
Also please quit using the erroneous term “universal health care” when speaking of one country’s plan vis a vis another. We HAVE universal health CARE in America. We have a different payment structure than do some EU countries that have socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
This is just semantics. I think you know what I mean. Yes, we have “Universal” access to health care here but payment system puts it out of reach for some. That is unless you consider emergency room care useful for all healthcare needs.
LisaA said:
Oh and nothing is FREE, it’s just whether paid for through one’s choice or by taking OPM and distributing it to your favored groups.
Click to expand...
Again, semantics. Yes, I know nothing is free. Taxes in many EU countries that people pay are used to pay for healthcare. I’m trying to see if religious people in the EU think the way their healthcare system works violates religious beliefs.

Sorry my question angered you so much. Anyway thanks for your reply.
 
brigantine said:
This makes sense. Although, I think they should realize they will never find a way to accommodate the CC on this. Ultimately the courts will need to decide this one way or the other. I would think it may in some circumstances violate the first amendment but I thought they would strike down the individual mandate so who knows.

This is just semantics. I think you know what I mean. Yes, we have “Universal” access to health care here but payment system puts it out of reach for some. That is unless you consider emergency room care useful for all healthcare needs.

Again, semantics. Yes, I know nothing is free. Taxes in many EU countries that people pay are used to pay for healthcare. I’m trying to see if religious people in the EU think the way their healthcare system works violates religious beliefs.

Sorry my question angered you so much. Anyway thanks for your reply.
Click to expand...
No it didn’t anger me, I get frustrated with the spin that the MSM has put on these issues that too many people repeat without thinking about the fallacy of the statement.

The issue is not "accommodating’ the Church but that our President expresses disdain for the Constitution. His administration already lost a Religious Freedom case 9 to ZERO. But they soldier on with their long term agenda of dismantling the Constitution (go ahead, fit me for a tin foil hat, I see a consistent pattern). Along with Religious Freedom, he’s trying to buck the 2nd Amendment and while that one isn’t nearly as near to my heart as the First Amendment, it continues the pattern. His Executive Orders, recess appointments, announcing he will not uphold or defend DOMA, and even the drone attacks demonstrate a man who is truly a legend in his own mind. I don’t care about any “accommodation” I want the whole thing withdrawn. The idea that the Feds can tell a private business to provide a particular product…for free…is the antithesis of what this country was founded upon.

Your post has yet another canard that I must explain. People in America are NOT DENIED MEDICAL CARE…OK I feel better. And no this isn’t the usual stereotype of using the emergency room as your primary care office, but in fact hospitals and doctors and other medical providers render services from treating the common cold to cancer surgery, even if the patient cannot pay or even if he has Medicaid which is nearly the same as not paying anything believe me.

However in its quest for control over the minutia of our daily lives, the Obama administration had to create a “crisis” where none existed, claiming that millions of Americans didn’t have health “care” when in fact they meant they didn’t have the usual employer based health INSURANCE. These are two completely different things. Care is not equivalent to insurance and insurance does not guaranty payment for a particular service. (read the back of your card if you don’t believe me!).

BTW this should not have to go through the courts costing everyone a lot of time, money and inconvenience. Had the whole HHS Mandate been thought through or had some sort of reason prevailed we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Thank you Obama voters! You are making a lot of lawyers very very happy!

Lisa
 
The President, while otherwise intelligent and well-spoken, is not elected with zero financial support. This support can include agreements to help convince him to “approve” certain things. I’m sure he hears one side of the story while the mainstream media and special interest groups lie to the American people. By lying often enough, and subtly enough, they wear people down. They craft their arguments so as to frighten people or engage them in some other emotional way.

Example: Deny free ABC via employers and it’s a “War on Women”! Even though there is NO EVIDENCE the President is willing to do this. The media repeats this message over and over again. Of course, too many do not analyze the “news,” they just hear the one - ridiculous - side of the story and assume that there is a War on Women.
  1. The Federal government has no right under any law to force private citizens to buy any product or service.
  2. Artificial birth control and health care should never be in the same sentence together. The body of a healthy woman, and man, are DESIGNED to function normally as far as reproduction is concerned. Artificial Birth Control fixes nothing. It prevents normal human bodily function.
  3. The President, aside from helping his financial supporters, also has to deal with lobbyists. Manufacturers of Artificial Birth Control have got to use whatever well-crafted words to convince him that this is a good move. Besides, the goal of any business is to sell product, the more the better. If they are tied to the real controllers of this country - Wall Street - then brokers will joyfully spread the word to their clients that company Y will be doubling or tripling its sales as soon as the HHS Dictatorship is put into effect.
I did not vote for Obama, but I did vote for somebody.

Bottom line: When sex is turned into an act like going to the toilet, and we’re getting the media message from TV that sex today, is “just sex” and meaningless, HOW and WHY should any man or woman actually LOVE EACH OTHER?

Stand in solidarity. We need love. Love that will extinguish abortion, that will extinguish artificial birth control, love that will extinguish using a substitute like porn or meaningless ‘just sex.’

Peace,
Ed
 
What’s so appalling here is how completely distorted the journalistic coverage of the matter is. The fact of the matter is that catholics are going to be forced to help pay for elective drug and procedure coverage that they morally object to. In other words, we are being forced to subsidize the lifestyle choices of others.

Every single retail corner in America has contraceptive options available for under $5. There is ZERO sensible reason for this to be a signature part of national healthcare policy. If people WANT more contraceptive options, they can go buy their own. Why should I have to pay for it?

The media is playing along with idiotic leftist rhetoric like “Catholic bishops seek to ban contraception.” I seriously saw something akin to this on HuffPo. Personally, I’m outraged that Obama has banned BMW 330i sedans with the sport package and manual transmission. After all, he hasn’t delivered one to me free yet, so he has effectively BANNED them, right?? :mad: :cool:
 
brigantine said:
What puzzles me is why the White House even bothers trying to accommodate the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
You mean the bishops of the Catholic Church.

I think there’s no doubt the WH, Congress, and Supreme Court are fully aware at least 50%-80% of the Catholic population do not agree with the Church’s positions on many things. If all Catholics were to report they don’t believe in articificial birth control, for example, then it would be a different story IMO. Just saying.
 
ProVobis said:
You mean the bishops of the Catholic Church.

I think there’s no doubt the WH, Congress, and Supreme Court are fully aware at least 50% of the Catholic population do not agree with the Church’s positions on many things. If all Catholics were to report they don’t believe in articificial birth control, for example, then it would be a different story IMO.
Click to expand...
BALONEY! ProVobis I think you’re smarter than this. It wouldn’t matter if 99% of Catholics use contraception or agree with its use. We are not BANNING contraception or suggesting it be banned or even that it be restricted. The Bishops may pray for the souls of women who use these products but they are not trying to stop their use.

The objection is with respect to religious freedom and whether a private entity can be forced to provide free products and services that are against their religious beliefs and practices.

I don’t give a rat’s patooty about what other women do in their bedrooms. But I neither want to help them nor pay for their activities.

IOW as the saying goes “Why is your reproductive system 100% none of my business but 100% my responsibility?”

Try again ProVobis, you are not as naive as your post indicates
Lisa
 
“Obama has banned BMW 330i sedans with the sport package and manual transmission.”?

Obviously, he doesn’t understand the concept that we are free to buy what we want and not buy what we don’t want. Sounds dictatorial to me.

Peace,
Ed
 
So here’s the question that always stumps me:

What do you think about Jehovah Witnesses not covering blood transfusions? It’s against their relgiious beliefs.
 
Lucky7 said:
So here’s the question that always stumps me:

What do you think about Jehovah Witnesses not covering blood transfusions? It’s against their relgiious beliefs.
Click to expand...
If Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to purchase policies which do not cover blood transfusions, they ought to be able to do that. If JW employers do not wish to provide such coverage, that ought to be their decision, not the government’s.
 
I noted in this morning’s newspaper an opinion piece by columnist Margaret Carlson in which she opines that the bishops should just accept the compromise and move on. In fact, she thinks the bishops ought to be grateful to the administration for even attempting to compromise.

The administration continues to promote ‘compromises’ which do not solve the problem and remain unacceptable. The media will then blame the bishops for being inflexible.

Women can buy generic contraceptive pills quite cheaply. But with the HHS mandate now requiring no co-pay coverage, they can get expensive brand name contraceptives for no cost. It’s a great boon to the pharmaceutical companies, who will now push for branded drugs rather than generics, since it’s “free” to the consumer.

Of course, there is no need in the first place to mandate these particular coverages. Those purchasing health insurance policies ought to be able to choose the policies they want and that fit their needs—not be mandated to have specific coverages which often make no sense.
 
JimG said:
Of course, there is no need in the first place to mandate these particular coverages. Those purchasing health insurance policies ought to be able to choose the policies they want and that fit their needs—not be mandated to have specific coverages which often make no sense.
Click to expand...
I believe people can still buy individual insurance on their own, even if their employer offers it. I did for 10 years because the company paid me more per hour for being a part-timer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top