White House to Announce "Accommodation"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teelynn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wonder if someone can help me out here and post a link that works…:o I don’t have time to fool around with it this morning…so sorry about this.:o
 
If Obama at minimum does not offer a waver to Churches and employers who do not want to offer contraception, sterilization and abortificants in their health care insurance, Obama will be doing more harm than he and his admin have done already.
 
Contraceptives, Day after pil, abortion are all elective medical treatments. Many elective medical treatments are not covered by most insurance policies. It still is a woman’s choice to use these medical treatments. That right hasn’t been taken away from her with an exemption for the insurance coverage of Catholic institutions. She just has to pay for such treatments out of her own pocket just as she would for comestic surgery or most dental procedures. The audacity of Obama Care is that it made these treatments mandatory coverage as though pregnancy was an adverse medical condition.

Secondly, employees have a choice as to where they work. If an employee insist on having these coverages in their insurance policies then they have the right to seek employment at a company or institution that offers such coverage. If the administration really wants to find a compromise then find an insurance company to offer coverage just for those treatments and offer a supplemental policy that will be fully paid for by the employee through a payroll deduction if need be. That way the institution will not be contributing to the payment for something that goes against their beliefs.
 
More details:
The White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.
Click to expand...
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
Click to expand...
Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.
Click to expand...
In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees. This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization strongly opposed to that care in order to obtain it.
Click to expand...
abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

This article is from a few days ago:

Catholic Bishops Rep: Obama Mandate Compromise Maybe Worse
But Richard Doerflinger tells the Weekly Standard the Hawaii model “may be worse” because it would still have Catholic and other religious employers sending women for coverage for drugs that violate their moral beliefs.
Click to expand...
lifenews.com/2012/02/08/catholic-bishops-rep-obama-mandate-compromise-maybe-worse/

It sounds a little different in the ABC article though.
 
We have to look at this offer very carefully. I would hope that the Bishops will not compromise in the least…we cannot, we have already lost too much ground morally in the country. We have to make a strong stand NOW. We have him on the run, the ball is in our court at the moment.
 
I don’t know what the White House will offer, but I suspect it will be too little and still be a violation of First Amendment freedom of religion. NO individual employer should be mandated to violate his conscience.

The president has declared war on religion. A temporary truce giving just a tiny bit of freedom back won’t cut it.
 
I agree that the “accommodation” is unlikely to be satisfactory - but we shall see. I can’t see how anything short of a complete reversal will satisfy the Bishops and other religious leaders. This is a clear attack on the constitution of the United States by the man who has sworn to protect and defend it.
Even some member of his own party see this and are taking him to task on the matter.

Either he backs down, gets tossed out in favor of a republican administration (and reversal of the order), or the matter goes to the supreme court.

Anyone have any guesses as to how a court battle might turn out??

Peace
James
 
JimG said:
I don’t know what the White House will offer, but I suspect it will be too little and still be a violation of First Amendment freedom of religion. NO individual employer should be mandated to violate his conscience.

The president has declared war on religion. A temporary truce giving just a tiny bit of freedom back won’t cut it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, like I said earlier…we have the upper hand at the moment…let’s hang on to it and get this thing really nailed down. The President is going to speak at ??? 12:10pm eastern time? I think that’s what has been reported…
 
Teelynn said:
Exactly, like I said earlier…we have the upper hand at the moment…let’s hang on to it and get this thing really nailed down. The President is going to speak at ??? 12:10pm eastern time? I think that’s what has been reported…
Click to expand...
I wonder if these people really have a clue about what they are playing with here…
The folks who are pro-religious freedom are also pro-right to bear arms. In each case these items were included in the constitution expressly to protect the people from their government.

Now - I am a non-violent person. I do not advocate armed rebellion. I believe in the basic
goodness of the system and with good people in office (and the courts) the system works well.
BUT - - It might be well for the administration to recognize that the pro-gun and the Pro-Life lobbies probably have a lot of overlap…
Try to take away our right to bear arms? Try to take away our religious freedom? These are potentially volatile things…

Again - let me say that I am not promoting violence here…Just making an observation…
Prayer, fasting and (if necessary) peaceful civil disobedience are preferable in the current situation.

Peace
James
 
From what I understand he is going to say that religious employers dont have to pay for it…but insurance companies must provide it now instead to woman who cannot get it from their religious emmployer…

But there is a part of this that I dont like…no matter what. I pay into health insurance…and by doing so am I not paying for other woman’s contraceptives? I know that when we pay taxes our money is used for all sorts of things…but I HAVE To pay tax and “give to ceaser what is ceasers” applies there…BUT…i don’t HAVE to have health insurance and I am not sure that as a Catholic we should pay into a plan that is going to raise our premiums to cover other woman’s contraceptives…Idk…there are plenty of things we use and buy giving money to companies who support immoral things, but maybe it is time that we really stop doing this! It hurts for us…but its a message we NEED to send…
 
JRKH said:
I agree that the “accommodation” is unlikely to be satisfactory - but we shall see. I can’t see how anything short of a complete reversal will satisfy the Bishops and other religious leaders. This is a clear attack on the constitution of the United States by the man who has sworn to protect and defend it.
Even some member of his own party see this and are taking him to task on the matter.

Either he backs down, gets tossed out in favor of a republican administration (and reversal of the order), or the matter goes to the supreme court.

Anyone have any guesses as to how a court battle might turn out??

Peace
James
Click to expand...
He’ll lose but issue an executive order to the exact same effect as many times as it takes to stick, just like with his shutdown of drilling in the gulf at the cost of thousands of jobs.
 
Teelynn said:
We have to look at this offer very carefully. I would hope that the Bishops will not compromise in the least…we cannot, we have already lost too much ground morally in the country. We have to make a strong stand NOW. We have him on the run, the ball is in our court at the moment.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I hope and pray that the Bishops will stand firm together and NOT. GIVE. IN.

I’m very suspicious of what Obama might have up his sleeve…

HE HAS TO BE DEFEATED THIS COMING NOVEMBER!

NO IFS-NO ANDS-NO BUTS! :mad:

STAND YOUR GROUND, YOUR EXCELLENCIES!
 
Obama can take his “waiver” ideas and stick them in his ear.

It’s the same pack of lies he sold with the initial ram-through of his Healthcare Nationalization Plan back at the start of this whole mess. We’d have to be inexcusably gullible to buy a second round of the same snake-oil. He waited 3 years and then tried to impose this on us when he thought we were too weak to resist. Rebuked, the Administration is retreating to its original beach head. There’s absolutely nothing in place to say they can’t try this again when the moment seems opportune.

Let me make it really simple:

A Government that claims the authority to give you a waiver automatically reserves for itself the authority to deny you a waiver.

The only acceptable solution is to use the ballot box to expunge the Obama Regime and secure a permanent abolition of the government’s presumption of such authority. We can not consent to be governed by a regime that presumes it has such authority with no regard for Constitutional limits on its powers and no regard for the conscience rights of its citizenry unless they can stir up trouble in the media.
  • Marty Lund
 
Planned Parenthood is praising the compromise.

Why?

Contraception as well as abortion are now “rights” in the US. The church might not have to pay for it but it will have to direct it’s employees to insurance companies that will.

So now free contraception is available to all women as thei right through health care plans.

Shrewd move by the White House - this may have been the plan all along.
 
Planned Parenthood is praising the compromise.

Why?

Contraception as well as abortion are now “rights” in the US. The church might not have to pay for it but it wil have to direct it’s employees to insurance companies that will.

So now free contraception is available to all women as their right through health care plans.

Shrewd move by the White House - this may have been the plan all along.
 
I think democrat voting, lukewarm Catholics are the biggest problem in this country. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top