WH:No Constitutional Rights Issue in Forcing Catholics to Act Against Their Faith

[Brendan]

I’ll get all the religious freedom I need in Heaven, hopefully. Until then, I live on a planet that contains other people.

One of the great things about being Catholic is that we can look to some really great historical examples of people who encounters the same issues we face, and how they addressed them in a way that got them into Heaven.

For governmental intrusions on religious liberty, we can look to the example of the widow with 7 sons (2 Macc 6:7–7:42 ).

She, and her sons, chose to obey the Laws of God over the law of Man.

Look at the desire of the widow and her sons to hold fast to something as simple as a kosher law, which was not even part of the Moral Law.

The widow lived on a planet with other people too. God gives us the example of this woman, her sons, and others, such as St. Cecilia,

They all had to deal with the problem of a lack of religious freedom, and each could have made a simple choice, to eat pork, to offer incense to an idol. But they chose to stand with God, with true religious freedom, against secular law, against the world.

And thus we are given the model behavior for this issue and others like it.

Stand fast, oppose the State in everyway that it opposes the Laws of God.

 

[saraih]

Not a good example, I’m afraid. My individual religious right to not use contraception is not being oppressed here. As I’ve explained, I already pay for other people’s abortions. Every Catholic in the UK does. I oppose this with my vote and my voice and my example. I don’t oppose it by going to prison for not paying taxes. I just accept that more people in the UK aren’t Catholic than are Catholic. For now, anyway. Thank goodness for Polish immigration

 

[LisaA]

Not a good example, I’m afraid. My individual religious right to not use contraception is not being oppressed here. As I’ve explained, I already pay for other people’s abortions. Every Catholic in the UK does. I oppose this with my vote and my voice and my example. I don’t oppose it by going to prison for not paying taxes. I just accept that more people in the UK aren’t Catholic than are Catholic. For now, anyway. Thank goodness for Polish immigration

Sarah you don’t seem to understand the issue as it applies here in America. This has nothing to do with paying taxes or what they do with our tax money. It has to do with the government oppressing a religious organization in direct violation of our Constitution. They are demanding a religious organization act in ways contrary to the faith. We are saying no and are within our rights.

What happens to our tax money may be a depressing thought but is completely irrelevant to this issue. You cannot equate your right not to have an abortion with tax dollars with telling Catholic Charities it must provide sterilization, abortofacients and artificual contraceptive medications to every single employee. It is also irrelevant whether or not any employees of Catholic Charities elected to use the medical procedures or prescriptions. Get the individual’s response or reaction or inaction out of the mix here. It is irrelevant.

I thank God everyday I was born in America and I plan to leave it the way I found it. What is happening and has happened in Europe should be a warning to us.

Lisa

 

[saraih]

You’re right, I absolutely don’t. I said this in my first post. I’m unsure as to why ‘European’ is a dirty word as well.

How does this compare to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions in the US? can their organisations opt out of insurance coverage for blood transfusions, or is this an individual concern between the Witness and their Elders (and God)?

 

[LisaA]

You’re right, I absolutely don’t. I said this in my first post. I’m unsure as to why ‘European’ is a dirty word as well.

How does this compare to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions in the US? can their organisations opt out of insurance coverage for blood transfusions, or is this an individual concern between the Witness and their Elders (and God)?

European isn’t a dirty word, it’s a warning to us what will happen with government controlled healthcare. NICE isn’t very.

Blood transfusions are not mandated by the government. Again you’ve brought in a completely unrelated subject. In the U.S. it is the doctor’s advice whether or not a transfusion is needed or even advisable and then up to the patient whether or not to accept this treatment…or any other treatment.

Aside from this side track of the issue, the real problem is that there is no compelling reason that this particular coverage would be mandated and required by the federal government OTHER than Obama’s ideology and to pander to a specific interest group. This is not as if the government is saying that health insurance must provide a particular lifesaving treatment within its policies. There might be a great deal of support for such a mandate in this day of proposed healthcare rationing and cost cutting. But birth control, sterilization and abortofacients save no lives, do not improve or preserve health and may in fact be detrimental to the patient’s future health. Nor are these products/protocols particularly expensive or difficult to obtain.

So why is this particular set of medications and protocols carved in stone? No other reason than for Obama to pander to his pro abortion, feminist and secularist idealogues.
Logic and reason or even women’s health, for all the blathering by secularists, has nothing to do with this decision. Ironically the secular left is constantly claiming that people of faith are irrational!

Lisa

 

[saraih]

What happens with government controlled healthcare is that more people are more healthy, usually. The US has an appalling health record compared to some in Europe, Japan etc.

The UK is not great either but socialised medicine is far better than none at all. Just in infant mortality rates, such a wealthy nation ought to be ashamed of itself! Where is the human dignity? the pro-life stance in being between 40th and 46th in the world!

 

[LisaA]

What happens with government controlled healthcare is that more people are more healthy, usually. The US has an appalling health record compared to some in Europe, Japan etc.

The UK is not great either but socialised medicine is far better than none at all. Just in infant mortality rates, such a wealthy nation ought to be ashamed of itself! Where is the human dignity? the pro-life stance in being between 40th and 46th in the world!

Sarah get some facts instead of talking points. As to “socialized medicine is better than none at all” that is known as a Red Herring. We are not comparing GB to Afghanistan.

Please do not tell me that the British healthcare system is superior to ours. I work in a hospital that trains dozens of FMGs every year. They are all trying to ESCAPE the British system and said it is appalling. None of them want to go back believe me. Many foreign dignitaries come to America because we have the best healthcare system in the world. Our survival rates for cancer, heart disease etc are much higher than yours. Wait times for the British vastly exceed ours. When you have a cancer or heart disease diagnosis, I don’t think waiting is a good thing do you?

You can quote statistics that have been morphed around to look as if we have a higher infant mortality rate or a lower average lifespan but the reasons are the different methods of comparison and the rate of auto accidents in the US vis a vis GB. Regarding infant mortality, this is due to the way such statistics are counted. In America vis a vis Europe. If you think it’s important I can get you the real statistics and why it seems our rate is higher…it’s not. At any rate I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the subject.

You seem to think it’s fine for the government to decree what medicines and procedures MUST be included iin an insurance plan. We as Americans do not. OK now that we’ve got that cleared up, what else is there to discuss?

Lisa.

 

[saraih]

Well first of all I never compared the US to the UK. The UK health system is in trouble. I said some European countries and Japan.

Secondly, what a fallacy to suggest a system is superior because ‘foreign dignitaries’ and other wealthy people get great care. No doubt at all, if you are rich enough to afford it, the US is GREAT. If you aren’t, it is not. There have been field hospitals set up in Los Angeles where people queue for hours in miserable circumstances - field hospitals designed for the rural poor and war zones, for goodness sake - because American citizens have no other way to get care.

It is bizarre to me that any country would value the results of their system for the rich OVER the results it has for the poor.

I would love to see proof of your infant mortality rates being wonderful and not at all what the CIA factbook has them at. The CIA must truly hate America.

eta:as to the point about healthcare workers moving to the US, of course they make far more money there, we’re talking several times more. Of course here, getting sued isn’t a daily occurrence, so swings and roundabouts really.

 

[LisaA]

There have been field hospitals set up in Los Angeles where people queue for hours in miserable circumstances - field hospitals designed for the rural poor and war zones, for goodness sake - because American citizens have no other way to get care.

.

Where on earth did you hear such utter nonsense? Please check your sources. Since I live here and have never heard of such a thing…other than perhaps a field hospital set up at the site of a natural disaster…I suspect your source is less than credible.

As to the poor in this country not getting good care, again you need to get some facts. I work in a Catholic hospital and no one’s financial status is known to anyone other than the business office. Our doctors and nurses give the same care to every patient whether or not that patient can pay.

Really…you need to get some facts before making such odd statements. At any rate let’s not continue to hijack this thread. What about my conclusion that you think it’s perfectly fine for the government to tell a private organization that it must violate the religious teachings it is based upon. I on the other hand do not.

Lisa

 

[Dranu]

These are some peculiar times we are living in, but the reaction to this stuff is very heartening (especially the Bishops starting to use their croziers for a change to beat off the wolves).

 

[saraih]

Where on earth did you hear such utter nonsense? Please check your sources. Since I live here and have never heard of such a thing…other than perhaps a field hospital set up at the site of a natural disaster…I suspect your source is less than credible.

There was an entire documentary on them. Here is the first google article on one of them, found in five seconds using ‘field hospital Los Angeles’. This is not the only one but it is relatively recent (2009) theawl.com/2009/08/the-los-angeles-field-hospital-at-the-forum

The documentary was I believe shown as a series on such things as tent cities in California, around the same time.

I am done discussing healthcare with you, thank you for your opinions. I believe I have a clearer idea of your position now.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Where on earth did you hear such utter nonsense? Please check your sources. Since I live here and have never heard of such a thing…other than perhaps a field hospital set up at the site of a natural disaster…I suspect your source is less than credible.

As to the poor in this country not getting good care, again you need to get some facts. I work in a Catholic hospital and no one’s financial status is known to anyone other than the business office. Our doctors and nurses give the same care to every patient whether or not that patient can pay.

Really…you need to get some facts before making such odd statements. At any rate let’s not continue to hijack this thread. What about my conclusion that you think it’s perfectly fine for the government to tell a private organization that it must violate the religious teachings it is based upon. I on the other hand do not.

Lisa

Actually she’s right. Back around 2007(?) a group of health care professionals ran free health clinics in various states, California being one of them. On average, 5000 plus people showed up, and the surprise was the number who were not illegal immigrants but layed off American workers who were over 50 years of age, who lost their health insurance. They were too old to find work, but too young to qualify for medicare. They’ve since have run these free health clinics on an annual basis

It’s part of what drove states like Massachusetts to set up something to help people get affordable health insurance.

Jim

 

[LisaA]

Actually she’s right. Back around 2007(?) a group of health care professionals ran free health clinics in various states, California being one of them. On average, 5000 plus people showed up, and the surprise was the number who were not illegal immigrants but layed off American workers who were over 50 years of age, who lost their health insurance. They were too old to find work, but too young to qualify for medicare. They’ve since have run these free health clinics on an annual basis

It’s part of what drove states like Massachusetts to set up something to help people get affordable health insurance.

Jim

I read the article and the majority of people were there for dental work. This does not mean that a) this is a common situation and b) this is the only way for Americans to get medical care.

Trust me on this one, every one knows that hospital emergency rooms cannot turn ANYONE away. If people do not access medical care in this country it’s because they haven’t gone to a hospital emergency room. The downside of course is that this is a very expensive way to provide treatment, it diverts resources from actual emergencies and it allows people to be irresponsible and not get insurance even if they could afford it or are eligible for a Medicaid or other government plan.

The dirty little secret about “the uninsured” is that most of them could either afford insurance but would rather play roulette, they are eligible for Medicaid, Medicare or other government plan, or they are illegal. There is a small cadre of the truly severe cases where people are in that limbo of being too well off, employed or have pre-existing conditions but not eligible for Medicaid. That is what the healthcare bill should have focused upon and it wouldn’t have taken trillions of dollars or 3000 pages.

The other dirty little secret is that bills such as the one in Massachusetts did NOT do what was hoped and that is divert people from emergency rooms to doctors’ offices. The use of emergency rooms increased, not decreased. Further the Mass Care is not more affordable but is in fact one of the highest premium states in the country.

But that isn’t the issue is it? Do we truly think the government can tell Americans that they a) must buy a product they may not want and b) tell them precisely what that product must provide even if in violation of their religious faith?

I don’t, do you?
Lisa

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I read the article and the majority of people were there for dental work. This does not mean that a) this is a common situation and b) this is the only way for Americans to get medical car
Trust me on this one, every one knows that hospital emergency rooms cannot turn ANYONE away. If people do not access medical care in this country it’s because they haven’t gone to a hospital emergency room. The downside of course is that this is a very expensive way to provide treatment, it diverts resources from actual emergencies and it allows people to be irresponsible and not get insurance even if they could afford it or are eligible for a Medicaid or other government plan.

The dirty little secret about “the uninsured” is that most of them could either afford insurance but would rather play roulette, they are eligible for Medicaid, Medicare or other government plan, or they are illegal.
Lisa

FIrst off, ER’s have to treat you, but they don’t do it for free. They can attach your assets if you have any, then they charge the taxpayers.

Also, they can shut down as many did, when they get too many people to treat in a given day, so you get no health care.

I lost my job last March, I’m age 60. Too young for Medicare.

My insurance COBRA premims for my wife and myself are $1390 per month. I’m fortunate that I had severance pay and unemployment, but the severence pay ended last August and my unemployment ends in MArch. There are no extensions available.

So, will I be able to afford $1390 per month to keep my health insurance? Of course not.

By your argument, my wife and myself wont have health insurance because we just don’t want to pay for it.

Your infor that people were just showing up to free clinics for dental is also flawed.

Jim

 

[LisaA]

FIrst off, ER’s have to treat you, but they don’t do it for free. They can attach your assets if you have any, then they charge the taxpayers.

Also, they can shut down as many did, when they get too many people to treat in a given day, so you get no health care.

I lost my job last March, I’m age 60. Too young for Medicare.

My insurance COBRA premims for my wife and myself are $1390 per month. I’m fortunate that I had severance pay and unemployment, but the severence pay ended last August and my unemployment ends in MArch. There are no extensions available.

So, will I be able to afford $1390 per month to keep my health insurance? Of course not.

By your argument, my wife and myself wont have health insurance because we just don’t want to pay for it.

Your infor that people were just showing up to free clinics for dental is also flawed.

Jim

ER’s charge the taxpayers? Really? How does that happen?

As to your situation, as I said there are people who are in the middle, too many assets/income to qualify for Medicaid and cannot find unaffordable insurance. This is what the healthcare reform should have focused on. Instead it was a power grab by the Lefitists in Congress/WH.

The article stated that the majority of people at the hospital tent event were there for dental work. If the article is flawed so be it. I was simply quoting the article.

People do not die in the streets of America due to lack of food or medical care (unless they do not access it for whatever reason). Our country and particularly our religious institutions provide both, without charge and without question.

Again the thread is not about your particular situation which sadly is becoming more common thanks to the Obama administration IMO. But do you think the government has the right to force us to purchase health insurance (or other product) and to determine what we must have shoved down our throats? I don’t. Do you?
Lisa

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ER’s charge the taxpayers? Really? How does that happen?

The hospital bills the state.

As to your situation, as I said there are people who are in the middle, too many assets/income to qualify for Medicaid and cannot find unaffordable insurance. This is what the healthcare reform should have focused on. Instead it was a power grab by the Lefitists in Congress/WH.

Actually, it was written by the insurance industry, the same people who put out the false information to shoot down Hillary’s single payer universal health care, which I’m sure you’d oppose as well, so we’d end up with nothing.

The article stated that the majority of people at the hospital tent event were there for dental work. If the article is flawed so be it. I was simply quoting the article.

I believe it said many showed up for dental. It wouldn’t be most because dental was a minor part of the overall opperation.

People do not die in the streets of America due to lack of food or medical care (unless they do not access it for whatever reason). Our country and particularly our religious institutions provide both, without charge and without question.

I happen to know people right now, who are on the verge of becoming homeless, because their father developed early alzhiemers and has no insurance. Medicaid will kick in after his assests are spent down to $2000, then they’ll put a lean on the house, which his mother and adult children live in. One he dies, they’ll have to find a place to live, because of the lean on the property, which is in his name.

Again the thread is not about your particular situation which sadly is becoming more common thanks to the Obama administration IMO.

Obama had nothing to do with my situation.

But do you think the government has the right to force us to purchase health insurance (or other product) and to determine what we must have shoved down our throats? I don’t. Do you?

The government has the moral obligation to mandate that people have insurance, so as not to burden the rest of society, when they end up getting sick.

I live in Massachusetts under Romney Care, and it’s mandated, as Obama care will be.

Do I like it? No, I’d rather have universal health-care where I won’t have to worry that if my wife or myself become sick, we don’t have to spend ourselves into destitution before we get governent help.

Jim

 

[Tbrightson]

The government has the moral obligation to mandate that people have insurance, so as not to burden the rest of society, when they end up getting sick.

No it does not.

The mandate flies in the face of the commerce clause.

By your reasoning, the govt could dictate every facet of our lives…“so as not to be a burden”

Health care is not a right. A right does not demand something is to be taken from someone else by force.

If healthcare is a right, then the govt should buy me my firearm since I have a right to bear arms

 

[_Abyssinia]

** Catholic Leaders Criticize Obama, Birth Control Rules During Mass**

Priest says in Mass, ‘President Obama has lied to us.’

Obama at Notre Dame in 2009: “Let’s draft a sensible conscience clause”

wgrz.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1435575584001&odyssey=mod|tvideo|article

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

** Catholic Leaders Criticize Obama, Birth Control Rules During Mass**

Priest says in Mass, ‘President Obama has lied to us.’

Obama at Notre Dame in 2009: “Let’s draft a sensible conscience clause”

wgrz.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1435575584001&odyssey=mod|tvideo|article

I know our pastor read a letter from the bishops of Virginia last week declaring the same thing. Its about time the bishops start to realize the Frankenstein’s Monster that they helped create.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No it does not.

The mandate flies in the face of the commerce clause.

By your reasoning, the govt could dictate every facet of our lives…“so as not to be a burden”

Health care is not a right. A right does not demand something is to be taken from someone else by force.

If healthcare is a right, then the govt should buy me my firearm since I have a right to bear arms

The Bishops say that health-care is a basic right for every human being.

By your logic, ER’s could just let people die when they show up without health insurance.

Jim