White House to Announce "Accommodation"

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

Is pregnancy a disease that requires prevention and treatment?

If a woman believes that it is, I would daresay that she should have the title of “woman” stripped from her.

 

[PTL]

Don’t you see the problem here? Obama runs thing purely based on his words.
He has the authority to give the compromise. He said so, so be it. Do you see the grave danger here? If today we accept this compromise just because he said it, are we have no choice just to accept what he will say tomorrow?

We cannot give in. We must demand the overturn, not a modification per his words. Do you see the grave danger here? It is dictatorship in the disguise of concession. Very dangerous!
Where does he put the Catholic bishops? Any meeting? any consultation? No, it is “do as I say”, “only what I said count”. If this is not dictatorship, what is?

 

[JimG]

What if an insuror has religious objections? Do health insurors have no religious liberty to not offer what they find objectionable?

And what if an employer refuses to buy any plan which includes such coverage, due to religious objections. Free or not, it’s still in the plan. Do employers have no religious liberty?

 

[lakotak]

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.

No one ever said that the devil was not shrewd!!

 

[JRKH]

Don’t you see the problem here? Obama runs thing purely based on his words.
He has the authority to give the compromise. He said so, so be it. Do you see the grave danger here? If today we accept this compromise just because he said it, are we have no choice just to accept what he will say tomorrow?

We cannot give in. We must demand the overturn, not a modification per his words. Do you see the grave danger here? It is dictatorship in the disguise of concession. Very dangerous!
Where does he put the Catholic bishops? Any meeting? any consultation? No, it is “do as I say”, “only what I said count”. If this is not dictatorship, what is?

Agreed.

I don’t see our bishops backing down at this point. The gauntlet has been thrown down and picked up.
Obama and his cronies must now face off against, not just the Catholic Church, but pretty much ALL religious groups who will guard their religious liberty in court if necessary AND the political backlash that is beginning to be seen within his own party.

I think that Obama might be hearing an old Carole King song in his head…

I feel the earth move under my feet
I feel the sky tumbling down, tumbling down

As time goes on, I think more of his support will head for the exits on this one. He just doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Peace
James

 

[Joe_5859]

It looks like the “accommodation” has been announced:

reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-usa-contraceptives-idUSTRE8181MX20120210

I am anxious to see the particulars. This move is much more drastic than I was expecting, but I still fail to see how this is anything but a sleight of hand. So now the insurance companies will have to pay for it? Well, how do you think they’ll get the money to pay for it? They’ll raise the premiums.

Whatever you call it, it amounts to basically the same thing.

Unless I’m missing something, which is possible at this early stage since the announcement was made.

I still wonder about what this means for individuals. What about Catholic small business owners? Are they able to be exempt under this new interpretation or are they still forced to violate their consciences and pay up simply because they are not a “religious organization” but “merely” a business run by a religious person?

 

[InLight247]

Don’t you see the problem here? Obama runs thing purely based on his words.
He has the authority to give the compromise. He said so, so be it. Do you see the grave danger here? If today we accept this compromise just because he said it, are we have no choice just to accept what he will say tomorrow?

We cannot give in. We must demand the overturn, not a modification per his words. Do you see the grave danger here? It is dictatorship in the disguise of concession. Very dangerous!
Where does he put the Catholic bishops? Any meeting? any consultation? No, it is “do as I say”, “only what I said count”. If this is not dictatorship, what is?

I agree. The whole thing is based on his authority, very scary. I hope our bishops will NOT buy this.
Please!!

 

[Pat_Albertson]

This is a link to a Comcast (Comcast links, in my experience have a tendancy to disappear with time, so read it now. It may very well be dead and gone in a week or two, although by that time you should know the whole story anyway.) article: Obama: Birth control policy meets everyone’s needs

 

[_Abyssinia]

Archbishop Wenski of Miami: “He’s hasn’t really addressed our concerns. I think the only thing to do is… to take back the whole thing.”

 

[_Abyssinia]

Planned Parenthood, Pro-Abortion Groups Back Revised Mandate

lifenews.com/2012/02/10/planned-parenthood-pro-abortion-groups-back-revised-mandate/

 

[_Abyssinia]

Conservative Catholics not happy with health care compromise

The Rev. Frank Pavone, president of the Catholic anti-abortion organization Priest for Life, said “A resolution to this issue cannot only cover ‘religious’ employers. Religious freedom, which includes freedom of conscience, does not belong only to religious entities but to every American. There are many non-religious reasons to object to the administration’s policy.”

Writing at CatholicVote.org, Tom Crowe was not satisfied with the compromise: “If the religious institution is being required to pay for an insurance plan that subsidizes the insurance company’s efforts to proactively spread information about obtaining contraceptives, and then also pays for the contraceptives, that still means the church is being required to subsidize services and items it deems morally repugnant. The church’s money would still be used to support gravely immoral activity.”

An official with the U.S. Catholic Bishops said that the administration did not consult with their group before announcing the compromise, but the group has not yet officially commented on the revisions.

Speaking on Morning Joe as news of a potential deal broke, Washington Archbishop Cardinal Donald Wuerl said: “It’s the administration who has redefined health care. It is the presumption that pregnancy is some sort of health care anomoly that to have, to be pregnant is some sort of illness. [That approach says] we must prevent that illness and so we’ve redefined health care. . . A pregnancy becomes the problem.”

washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/conservative-catholics-not-happy-with-health-care-compromise/2012/02/10/gIQApJyH4Q_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

They shouldn’t be conservative Catholics, they should be called ‘Catholics.’ They do not have conservative positions on the HHS mandate, they have Catholic positions.

 

[whipp711]

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.

Actually, no. Part of the 1st Amendment is the concept of “force speech.” The government cannot force the Catholic hospital tell employees about free contraception.

The lawsuits will continue and upset this apple cart. And everyone thought Carter was lacking in smarts.

 

[Cursilista]

The president has just pitted the Catholic church against all of the rest of america.

What the president has done here is smoke and mirrors as well as divide and conquer. lets rationilize this. Religious institutions your employees will have the coverage and it must be in your insurance coverage policy but you wont have to pay for that coverage therefore your not participating in abortion or contraceptives. So who pays for it? The Insurance Companies? yeah right! The insurance companies get those funds from the premium payers. So who pays? Others on other standard plans? Im sure they will blame the catholics when their premiums go up cause they have to cover our cost for birth control . With this accomodation the president will pissed off others against the Catholic church’s stand on BC because now others have to pay for the Catholics employee cost for those services.

How will Catholic institutions compare premiums for their group coverage against the premiums of standard policy cost that have the required coverage. The head of Obama’s health services just said on tv that preventive measures against pregnangcy actually saves the insurance companies money. Whereas common sense tells you that if a policy dosent have to pay for these services your premiums should be lower. She made the suggestion so that the insurance carrier would have the ability to actually charge more for policies that dosent include coverage for BC preventive services.

I hope the bishops see this potential pitfall and dont accept this so called “accomodation”.

It will eventually pit Catholics against other premium payers.

 

[Michael_C]

***"…women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services, no matter where they work…" ***

There’s that word “Free” again. Can I go to the factory/warehouse and pick up the contraceptives and walk out? How about a pharmacy? No, somone has to pay for them.

Tyranny!

 

[JRKH]

The president has just pitted the Catholic church against all of the rest of america.

What the president has done here is smoke and mirrors as well as divide and conquer. lets rationilize this. Religious institutions your employees will have the coverage and it must be in your insurance coverage policy but you wont have to pay for that coverage therefore your not participating in abortion or contraceptives. So who pays for it? The Insurance Companies? yeah right! The insurance companies get those funds from the premium payers. So who pays? Others on other standard plans? Im sure they will blame the catholics when their premiums go up cause they have to cover our cost for birth control . With this accomodation the president will pissed off others against the Catholic church’s stand on BC because now others have to pay for the Catholics employee cost for those services.

How will Catholic institutions compare premiums for their group coverage against the premiums of standard policy cost that have the required coverage. The head of Obama’s health services just said on tv that preventive measures against pregnangcy actually saves the insurance companies money. Whereas common sense tells you that if a policy dosent have to pay for these services your premiums should be lower. She made the suggestion so that the insurance carrier would have the ability to actually charge more for policies that dosent include coverage for BC preventive services.

I hope the bishops see this potential pitfall and dont accept this so called “accomodation”.

It will eventually pit Catholics against other premium payers.

I disagree with this…Not with the concept (because such a thing could pit the church against others) but because it simply won’t play out this way.

The Bishops, as well as other religious leaders, republican lawmakers and even some democrats have taken issue with this decision. If congress does not step in and take action, the courts likely will.

Lawsuits are already being filed. I know of at least one has been filed for a non-Catholic Christian university in Colorado, a small Catholic college in N.C. and EWTN om Alabama. Undoubtedly others will follow.
No matter how the administration tries to sugar coat it, this decree will not go into effect because you can be pretty darn certain that at least one of these state courts will block it as unconstitutional.

Peace
James

 

[whipp711]

It is still going to boil down to legal challenges. Congress couldn’t pass a bill if they tried. Even if they did, remember the presidential veto. There isn’t enough support to over-ride the veto.

EWTN lawsuit specifically mentions the opposition to “forced speech.” A representative being interview on Catholic Answers stated that a compromise will not fly in which the religious entity is force inform employees of the free birth control provided by an insurance carrier.

I think the smoke and mirrors will defuse the situation. I hope not. Lawsuits and the legal system is the only to overturn this obvious violation of church and state. Oh, yeah, the violation of the first amendment. The constitution was not written in pencil.

 

[_Abyssinia]

EWTN Statement on Today’s Obama Announcement

‘Like EWTN, many religious institutions self-insure their healthcare plans, meaning that we will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of our religious beliefs. Today’s announcement certainly does not give any hope to countless individual business owners and people of faith who share the concern about being required to provide for these services which they personally find immoral.’’

…

''Our legal action against the administration will continue. “

ncregister.com/daily-news/ewtn-statement-on-todays-obama-announcement/
From Notre Dame: White House Announcement Today Is ‘Inadequate’

‘Today’s rule still requires religious institutions (on pain of ruinous treasury fines) to purchase insurance that covers these same objectionable services. It is irrelevant that the rule requires the insurance company (rather than the religious institution) to explain to employees that the policy purchased for them by their employer includes the 5-day after pill. For institutions that self-insure, the situation is even worse; they will be forced to contact their employees and pay for such services themselves.’

nationalreview.com/corner/290772/notre-dame-white-house-announcement-today-inadequate-kathryn-jean-lopez
Statement from the Becket Fund which is representing lawsuits against the HHS mandate

Obama Administration Offers False “Compromise” on Abortion-Drug Mandate

'*First, hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations self insure, meaning that they will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of their religious beliefs. Second, it is unclear which religious organizations are permitted to claim the new exemption, and whether it will extend to for-profit organizations, individuals, or non-denominational organizations. Third, money is fungible, and many religious organizations may still object to being forced to pay money to an insurance company which will turn around and provide contraception to its employees for free.

“It is especially telling that the details of this supposed ‘compromise’ will likely not be announced until after the election,” said Smith. “Religious freedom is not a political football to be kicked around in an election-year. Rather than providing full protection for the right of conscience, the administration has made a cynical political play that is the antithesis of ‘hope and change*.’”

becketfund.org/obama-administration-offers-false-%E2%80%9Ccompromise%E2%80%9D-on-abortion-drug-mandate/

 

[_Abyssinia]

New petition!

Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate

Please sign, Facebook link and tweet.

petitionwire.blugap.com/petitions/22

 

[gilliam]

Still waiting the bishops. But from what I can tell, even with the new plan, the government is forcing religious organizations to both pay (albeit often indirectly) for and facilitate activities that violate their religious doctrine. It is clearly not a solution and may actually be unconstitutional (although if Obama gets another liberal justice on the Supreme Count he can count on them saying it is constitutional.)

As Santorum keeps saying, if you let government define your unalianable rights, you will find them change to suit the government’s whims.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obama Mandate to Cost Insurance Companies $2.8B, Raise Rates

Putting the moral and religious liberties concerns aside for one moment when it comes to the very controversial revised mandate the Obama administration issued today requiring insurance companies to cover birth control and drugs that may cause abortions, a cost component is coming into play.

As Tom McClusky, a vice president at the Family Research Council, notes, insurance companies will pay into the billions for coverage and will pass that on to consumers.

As for the President’s insistence this saves money, Blue Cross’s unofficial estimate was that it would cost $2.8 billion for the contraceptive/sterilization/abortifacient coverage, and $13 billion for all preventive care services. It would not be a huge jump in an average $4000 premium plan, about $13.00, but the overall cost is large.

Our Administration person basically said that whether fully insured or self-insured that the insurer is not going to eat the cost of the free contraceptives, so everyone’s premiums will still rise and the costs a religious employer pays “Blue Cross” or another insurance provider will increase to pay the difference.

As President Obama liked to say during the Obamacare debate insurance companies will want to make their profit, so they’ll increase rates somewhere. The religious employer will be directly paying the insurance company probably at increased cost, to provide the free contraceptives to the employee.

How bad is this? Pro-abortion groups like abortion giant Planned Parenthood opposed the religious exemption but support the “compromise” because now there are no exceptions. President Obama doesn’t seek compromise but confusion.  He isn’t looking for common ground on religious concerns but burial ground for the First Amendment

.

lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-mandate-to-cost-insurance-companies-2-8b-raise-rates/