Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Not exactly. Unless people are plugged into some sort of network that keeps them abreast of what's happening in other states, they may never hear of the shenanigans that go on over there. Also, Georgia is one of those states where the religious organization can get out of the mandate by self-insuring, an option that is not present in the federal rules. That's because in GA the regular insurance companies that offer prescription drug plans are required to include contraceptives. Nothing is stated in the law that requires the religious organizations to utilize those plans however.

The other reason, and it would have been the same if Bush, Clinton or any other tone-deaf administration had chosen to take this path, you're hearing about it is that it's coming from the federal government and affects everyone. Stuff that comes out of Washington gets known everywhere whereas folks in Oklahoma aren't likely to get a lot of news about some contraception thing happening in Nebraska or Illinois.

You're not even dealing with the central issue.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Not exactly. Unless people are plugged into some sort of network that keeps them abreast of what's happening in other states, they may never hear of the shenanigans that go on over there. Also, Georgia is one of those states where the religious organization can get out of the mandate by self-insuring, an option that is not present in the federal rules. That's because in GA the regular insurance companies that offer prescription drug plans are required to include contraceptives. Nothing is stated in the law that requires the religious organizations to utilize those plans however.

The other reason, and it would have been the same if Bush, Clinton or any other tone-deaf administration had chosen to take this path, you're hearing about it is that it's coming from the federal government and affects everyone. Stuff that comes out of Washington gets known everywhere whereas folks in Oklahoma aren't likely to get a lot of news about some contraception thing happening in Nebraska or Illinois.

You're not even dealing with the central issue.

I'm not arguing with your position on the issue. I'm addressing the reaction of the Right.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Ok fine. Some are using it for political gain in an election year. I'm as shocked as you are.

That said, it's pretty amazing how some of the sharpest criticism Obama is taking on this is coming from the Catholic left. He got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008 and much of that was from people who supported the social justice aspects of his platform embodied in getting more people affordable health care. They were instrumental in getting the ACA passed. Some of them are even dissident Catholics that don't agree with the Church on contraception. And even they are stunned at the arrogance being displayed. While they may not view contraception as a sin, they take serious exception to the administration casting religious liberty aside on this. They don't think the Church should be forced to pay for it so this whole thing is a slap in their face.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

An Open Letter to President Barack Obama Concerning Recent Tyranny

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Marc

Dear Mr. President,

I am fully aware that these are days in which the federal government is — for all practical purposes — unlimited in its power. As it stands, you — sir — can detain any American citizen without due process simply because you suspect him of being a terrorist, you have magically managed to become the Chairman of the UN Security Council without the approval of Congress — despite that awkward Article 1.9 of the Constitution — and you — along with the FCC — seem to think the Internet is thine to regulate. Now I’m sure this sudden growth in power was seen as necessary, proper and really-cool by all of your staff, and thus I join in with their applause (but with those annoying, ironically-spaced claps that continue long after everyone else has finished.)

For there are those of us — yes, even a few of your happy-happy youth voters — who are curious as to whether the Constitution continues to mean anything at all. I distinctly recall holding it as a weapon against injustice, but I am now taught to regard it with a vague sort of embarrassment, as a pubescent boy might regard his grandmother on Facebook, who comments on his attempts to attract a girl with things like “just remember chastity!”

It makes the radical claim — this Constitution — that “Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion…” a claim which your administration has adhered to. But as it turns out, you cannot have the first part of this Establishment Clause without the second part, that is: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Similarly, you cannot take your wife “in health” without that aggravating precursor “in sickness”.) You are not allowed to establish a state religion, and you are not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion. You. just. can’t.

Otherwise, you are a Tyrant. Now, I know: Tyrant? (Quick, label the man an ultra-super-neo-conservative Tea Partier and ban him to the ranks of old men holding Ayn Rand signs so we don’t have to engage in rational debate.)

I am 18.

I own a Macbook, a blog and a sweater-vest.

I don’t even like Capitalism.

So do me the courtesy of taking me seriously. Being a tyrant is not necessarily a negative or positive thing, though I know the word is loaded with a not-so-nice connotation. It is simply a matter of definition. A tyrant, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”. If you prohibit the free exercise of religion, you are acting unrestrained by the Constitution, and thus as a tyrant. End of story.

In case there are any doubts as to my claim, I will give it to you straight: I hold that you are prohibiting the free practice of Catholicism in this country, and that you are thus, categorically speaking, a tyrant.

What would prohibiting the free exercise of religion consist of? Obviously, it might consist of banning a certain religious practice. A man might forbid the Jews their practice of circumcision. But it is equally true that the free exercise of religion would be prohibited by a man forcing the Jews to eat bacon. Both moves would be dick-moves: The free exercise of religion is violated both by what you take away from a religion, and by what you force a religion to do. If members of a religion are forced by the government to perform actions contrary to their beliefs, they are no more free than dogs.

Catholicism, an antiquated, dying religion without many members — oh, snap, wait, I meant the largest form of Christianity in America and the largest religion in the world — teaches that the use of artificial contraception and sterilization is wrong, and thus does not allow its institutions to provide it. Here’s where everyone flips out and loses sight of the argument, so let me be absolutely clear: I am not arguing that the use of artificial contraception is wrong. I do believe this, and firmly, but this is neither the time nor place to argue the point.

In fact, it would be best for all of us — Catholics included — to think of this particular Catholic teaching as silly, overbearing, and unfit for the modern mind to contain. Think of this teaching as you might think of the Jewish prohibition on pork, or the Hindu’s holding of the cow as sacred. Why? Because prohibiting the free exercise of religion does not become allowed in cases in which you happen to disagree with the religion, no matter how vehemently, unless that religion is directly violating an individual’s rights.

For instance, I disagree with the belief of Quakers, who will under no circumstances fight in a war. My disagreement does not give me leave — were I in a position of power — to force them to fight. Appropriately, the government respects the Quakers’ belief, as the government respects all conscientious objectors.

So why is it that the government is allowed to force Catholic institutions – including my school — to provide coverage for artificial contraception in their health insurance plans, as the US Health and Human Services have mandated them do by the end of the year? How is this anything but the prohibition of the free exercise of religion? Short answer: It is the prohibition of the free exercise of religion, and a despicable, unconstitutional, entirely illegal, embarrassingly heavy-handed and very, very stupid prohibition at that. I will run briefly through the arguments in its favor:

But it is necessary. Women need contraception.

There is no argument from necessity here: According to the 2010 Guttmacher Institute report on contraceptive use in the United States, “Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives,” and Kathleen Sebelius herself pointed out that even when contraceptive is not covered, “contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support,” not to mention pharmacies and doctor’s offices. And besides, women do not need contraception. I understand an employer being obligated to cover drugs relating to health. I do not understand why employer’s are obligated to provide for drugs that grant people responsibility-free pleasure. Again, I am not arguing whether or not sex-without-consequences is good or bad, I am merely pointing out that it is not necessary.

Just don’t take them yourself.

One cannot make the argument that while Catholics have the right to choose not to take artificial contraception personally, they should not be allowed to withhold artificial contraception from others any more than one could make the argument that while Jews don’t have to eat pork personally, their restaurants must serve the meat. No man is obligated to give another man what he believes is morally repulsive, unless his not giving it interferes with the rights of the other.

Well then, not providing free contraception violates the rights of women!

No it doesn’t. Not only can women get contraception elsewhere, but there exists utterly no “right to contraception.” And why would there be? I know our world is idiotic and sexist to the point of the embarrassing belief that women cannot prevent pregnancy without pills, but as it turns out, they can. In fact, if you’re a woman reading this, chances are you’re preventing pregnancy right now. (If not, rethink your sex life.) Thus a health-care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not damn women to pregnancy — oh, the horror — any more than not providing diet-pills would damn them to obesity.

But everyone has to do it!

No they don’t. Ed Whelan, over at the National Review Online, notes that “employers who employed fewer than 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year are not obligated to make any health-care insurance coverage available to their employees under Obamacare. 26 U.S.C. § 4980H©(2). Like employers with grandfathered plans, they thus have no obligation to provide insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients, and they face no penalty for not doing so.” The government is acknowledging that there isn’t a striking necessity for contraceptive coverage, certainly not enough of a necessity to force smaller companies to cover contraceptives. Why the mad rush to force Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives then? Why is it okay for small companies with no opinion in the matter to continue not providing contraception, while institutions that absolutely and morally reject the use of contraception must? An excess of stupid? An agenda?

Now I’m sure more objections could be raised, but the Internet is short, and I must be brief. Therefore:

Mr. President, The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan noted that ‎”The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.” This injustice is not something that need solely concern the Catholic Church — if the federal government can force Catholics to act against their consciences, they can force anyone to act against their conscience, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Atheist, and by the same pitiful reasoning.

Mr. President, take it back.

Yours Truly,

Marc Barnes, student and citizen.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Ok fine. Some are using it for political gain in an election year. I'm as shocked as you are.

That said, it's pretty amazing how some of the sharpest criticism Obama is taking on this is coming from the Catholic left. He got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008 and much of that was from people who supported the social justice aspects of his platform embodied in getting more people affordable health care. They were instrumental in getting the ACA passed. Some of them are even dissident Catholics that don't agree with the Church on contraception. And even they are stunned at the arrogance being displayed. While they may not view contraception as a sin, they take serious exception to the administration casting religious liberty aside on this. They don't think the Church should be forced to pay for it so this whole thing is a slap in their face.

It's an interesting debate of a complex issue. I'm not sure we've seen the final outcome.

[Justin5 20]

Report: White House to modify birth control rule

By Daniel Strauss - 02/10/12 07:36 AM ET

The White House will announce an effort to accommodate religious groups who have objected to a rule requiring religious organizations like charities and hospitals to include contraception in their healthcare plans, according to ABC News.

The White House has faced heavy criticism from the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, Republicans, and even some Democrats over the issue, and Vice President Biden has suggested a compromise could be worked out.

According to ABC News, the accommodation will retain the rule's purpose of providing birth control for women employees but would allow the employees to get the coverage from an insurance provider.

ABC said it is possible the announcement will come from Obama himself, who avoided questions on Thursday about the controversy.

It’s unclear whether such an offer would appease critics of the rule, who have portrayed it as an attack on religious freedom since it would force religious organizations to offer something that is against their beliefs.

The House is moving to repeal the requirement, and the Energy and Commerce Committee will consider legislation next week.

While the rule would not require churches to offer birth control, it would require hospitals, charities and schools with the Catholic Church’s backing to do so.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/209905-report-white-house-to-announce-accommodation-on-contraception-rule?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed

[Grumps 3,704]

So what? It's still wrong and if I lived in a state with such a poor understanding of the free exercise clause of our Constitution, I would have been raising hell about it much earlier. It's wrong. The government has no business telling a religious organization that it has to provide or pay for services that go against its beliefs. Sorry. And when it reaches the Supreme Court, the administration will lose decisively. In fact, I think they realize this and will attempt to fix or scrap it before it gets to that point to avoid the embarrassment.

I don't doubt you would, but the fact that this has been the law of the land in many states, including neighboring Georgia that has no exception, and yet the great Right Wing noise machine didn't care until they could attach Obama's name to their complaint, is just par for the course and points to a broader hypocrisy that extends beyond you and other folks who sincerely hold your view.

So are you honestly going to tell us that you knew that Georgia and other states have a law that requires Catholic organizations to provide abortifacients to its employees? (if, in fact, that is true)Do you think that most people are outraged before they are aware of a situation? To say that the right is outraged on this issue because Fox tells them to be is ridiculous and you know it.

Unfortunately, Obama realizes that he screwed up royally (though he will use softer words)and he will attempt to talk his way out the fact that he thinks some people don't have the Constitutional right to freedom of religious beliefs. Then the masses will hear on mainstream news what a great Christian man he is and all will live happily ever after.....

[Justin5 20]

Why do you keep calling it abortifacients? In your opinion, you think birth control = abortion?

[BamaGrad03 146]

To say that the right is outraged on this issue because Fox tells them to be is ridiculous and you know it.

ESPECIALLY considering the Catholic base supports Obama in major issues like immigration and healthcare reform. And additionally, the majority of them voted for Obama in the last election.

It's a bit disingenuous to label them as some super right leaning faction of Fox news watching tea party people.

[Justin5 20]

To say that the right is outraged on this issue because Fox tells them to be is ridiculous and you know it.

ESPECIALLY considering the Catholic base supports Obama in major issues like immigration and healthcare reform. And additionally, the majority of them voted for Obama in the last election.

It's a bit disingenuous to label them as some super right leaning faction of Fox news watching tea party people.

I feel extremely confident in saying that this issue will have ZERO effect on who wins the election this fall. Its only in the news because its a slow week.

So argue away, but its just filling an otherwise slow news week.

[Justin5 20]

Who’s Wrong in ‘War on Catholics’?

February 7, 2012

Exclusive: GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich claims President Obama has declared “war on the Catholic Church” with a ruling that contraception must be included in health plans for employees of church-led institutions, but Catholic moral theologian Daniel C. Maguire says it is the U.S. bishops (and Gingrich) who are wrong.

By Daniel C. Maguire

The decision of the Obama administration to ensure health care coverage including contraception in Catholic institutions has enraged American bishops who lobbied hard against it. The bishops claim their religious freedom is violated by this ruling, but the bishops are wrong and out of the mainstream of Catholic teaching, including the teaching of bishops in other parts of the Catholic world.

A number of bishops, including Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, have spoken strongly on the need for condoms, especially in areas ravaged by sexually transmitted diseases. The U.S. bishops are even at odds with the pope who approves the use of condoms “where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection.”

The Vatican's St. Peter's Basilica

The papal change on condoms effectively ended the taboo on condoms since it says that health concerns may require their use, and there are many health concerns aside from HIV/AIDS. The nonpartisan and well-respected Institute of Medicine, on which the Obama administration relied, says contraceptives can be used to treat reduce the risk of endometrial cancer and pelvic inflammatory disease and other diseases mainly affecting women.

Also use of contraception is linked to the decline in infant death. Obviously contraception limits the number of abortions since it prevents unwanted pregnancies.

But the American bishops say the administration’s decision on Jan. 20 was a case of religious freedom. In that, they are right but not in the way they intend it. The bishops are claiming the religious freedom to violate the religious freedom of those who are employed in their institutions or who are served in their tax-supported hospitals. By denying contraception as part of employee health plans, what the bishops seek is more like religious fascism than religious freedom.

Furthermore, traditional Catholic teaching rests on a tripod, including the hierarchy, the theologians and the sensus fidelium, the experience-fed wisdom of the laity. These three sources of teaching are, as Cardinal Avery Dulles said, “complementary and mutually corrective.” An accurate look at Catholic teaching on contraception today shows strong support for the position that contraception is not only permissible but even mandatory in many cases.

Catholic theologians overwhelmingly support contraception. Dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities cover prescribed contraceptives. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used contraceptives. Only 2 percent of Catholic women use the “rhythm method” of birth control favored by conservative Catholics.

Therefore the decision of the Obama administration, rather than threatening Catholic teaching on contraception, is actually more attuned to actual Catholic teaching than are the American Catholic bishops with their idiosyncratic taboo on contraception.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/07/whos-wrong-in-war-on-catholics-fight/

[au2004ece 30]

Zero outrage over this issue even though 28 states have required it for YEARS, many without the exemptions the Federal law provides. Fox directs, you emote.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2012/02/catholic-contraception-controversy-the-state-of-pay/

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/02/09/massachusetts-law-insured-birth-control-similar-rule-set-barack-obama/ff1IAblzQ7zTVuns1zAo4N/story.html

There was no outcry in the other 22 states when the Catholics did not provide contraceptives and abortions for their employees. Why make this ruling, then?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Why do you keep calling it abortifacients? In your opinion, you think birth control = abortion?

Because it covers abortifacients as well, not just preventatives. It covers things that specifically prevent a fertilized egg (conception has occurred) from being able to implant in the womb, or "Ella" which is the "week after" abortion pill (it's labeled effective up to 5 days after unprotected sex that results in conception). It's essentially a sister drug to RU-486. In fact, it is embryotoxic, which means that even though the label use is for the so-called "morning after" pill, it can end a pregnancy (where the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall) as well, simply by killing the baby.

[BamaGrad03 146]

To say that the right is outraged on this issue because Fox tells them to be is ridiculous and you know it.

ESPECIALLY considering the Catholic base supports Obama in major issues like immigration and healthcare reform. And additionally, the majority of them voted for Obama in the last election.

It's a bit disingenuous to label them as some super right leaning faction of Fox news watching tea party people.

I feel extremely confident in saying that this issue will have ZERO effect on who wins the election this fall. Its only in the news because its a slow week.

So argue away, but its just filling an otherwise slow news week.

There are a number of issues that wont win or lose an election. That doesn't mean people aren't passionate about them.

And it also doesn't support your argument that the only people who care are Fox Newsies.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

To say that the right is outraged on this issue because Fox tells them to be is ridiculous and you know it.

ESPECIALLY considering the Catholic base supports Obama in major issues like immigration and healthcare reform. And additionally, the majority of them voted for Obama in the last election.

It's a bit disingenuous to label them as some super right leaning faction of Fox news watching tea party people.

I feel extremely confident in saying that this issue will have ZERO effect on who wins the election this fall. Its only in the news because its a slow week.

So argue away, but its just filling an otherwise slow news week.

That depends on how close the race is. If this galvanizes support and motivates more to go to the polls or not vote third party on the GOP side (which was far from certain before), it obviously will boost their numbers. If the 54% of Catholic voters who supported Obama see this as an attack on the church and free exercise of religion, you could see a large loss of votes for Obama on that side. Virtually ever left-leaning Catholic that was in Obama's corner on the election and health care reform has expressed shock, disappointment and even anger. They feel betrayed. I wouldn't be so dismissive.

Check that. Be dismissive. Listen to the radical feminist voices on your side of the aisle that say all is well and those annoying social conservatives won't matter.

Also, I'll add that this isn't just a firestorm because it's a slow news week. The administration bumbled this in two big ways. First they sent the wrong implied signals to Catholics and other pro-lifers by choosing the anniversary of Roe to announce this policy decision. It made a very strong implied link to the abortion debate with this assault on religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Second, people on the Catholic/religious side who had one on one discussions with the administration over this were repeatedly assured that they would "be happy" with the end result and that there would be a generous exemption for their concerns. When the decision was announced, they felt stabbed in the back. They had been on the frontlines with semi-nervous Catholics garnering support for the health care law with the belief that it would satisfy the social justice aims and mission Catholics share without imposing mandates that forced them to participate in things they believed to be immoral. The adminstration left them twisting in the wind.

Not smart.

[BamaGrad03 146]

I'll add to Titan's offering...

Clearly, Obama sees it as a potential firestorm, or he wouldn't have adjusted his position.

[Justin5 20]

Things that will matter in this election:

JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS

Oh, and jobs.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

When even Obama fan Chris Mathews of MSNBC is crying foul, you know you stepped in it:

While Chris Matthews may hove gotten that thrill up his leg in the past for Barack Obama, as a Catholic he‘s pretty fired up over the president’s mandate that faith-based employers provide contraception. How upset? He was bold enough to scold a New York Magazine reporter for using a White House talking point to defend the mandate.

During a segment on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” reporter John Heilemann responded to one question by saying that 28 states in the country already have the mandate. Seems like a slam dunk for the president. But it’s not, and Matthews caught it:

(see original article for video link)

“It’s not the law of the land,” Matthews snapped when Heilemann brought up the argument. “The law, those requirements are not the same as this. I’ve gone through this. That’s what the White House is putting out. Get that established independently of the White House. Just do that, because there’s co-pays involved and it’s different.”

So why isn’t it a slam dunk? It is true that 28 states have the requirement. But as Matthews correctly notes, many of those laws include caveats, unlike the federal mandate. The National Catholic Reporter has more:

Currently, 28 states have laws requiring contraceptive coverage as part of health plans. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 of those states offer some type of exemption, a list including Arizona, New York, Maryland, Missouri and California.

Whether exemptions exist or not, Catholic groups in all 28 states can avoid the contraceptive mandate in one of three ways, says the U.S. bishops’ conference. These include self-insuring prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage completely or opting into a federal law that preempts any state mandates.

Critics say the narrowness of the recent federal ruling would block religious groups from taking any of these avenues.

Kaiser Health News confirms the exemption number.

Noel Sheppard noticed that Heilmann looked pretty embarassed:

He ends his analysis with a question: “Kudos to the Hardball host, but wouldn’t it be nice if nobody on MSNBC was ever allowed to echo Obama administration talking points?”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-matthews-scolds-ny-mag-reporter-for-using-white-house-talking-point-on-contraception/

More:

“It gets to that interesting point to me, which is frightening, when the state tells the church what to do,” said Matthews February 7 on MSNBC’s Hardball…

The Obama administration counted on liberal Catholics supporting the mandate. Liberal Catholics may indeed think the Church should condone contraception, but they do not like the idea of the government telling the Church to condone contraception, as this devastating Rasmussen poll indicates.

There’s a ton going on, but I want to focus on the main point, which is: This entire debate is not about the contraceptive mandate. It is about the First Amendment. This is about religious freedom.

To that end, Catholic University President John Garvey made a great point on Fox News February 6:

It shows an attitude on the government’s part that religion is something we’ll protect if it’s just happening in church on Sunday, or in the mosque on Friday, but if it has to do with your daily activity or the life you want to lead, it’s not something we want to protect.

In other words, by exempting churches from the contraceptive mandate but not church institutions, the Obama administration is forcing religious people to compartmentalize their beliefs. The administration is saying, “It’s fine with us (at this point) if you live out your faith in church on Sunday, but you must betray your faith in your daily life the other six days.”

When I was in D.C. for the March for Life, a U.S. senator in an off-the-record meeting said what offended him most about the mandate was that Obama was giving religious institutions a year to comply. As Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB, put it, “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/when-even-chris-matthews-opposes-obama%E2%80%99s-contraceptive-mandate-you-know-it%E2%80%99s-trouble

But you be my guest. Go on thinking that those dumb old backwards Catholics and their supporters are a tempest in a teapot. I love seeing that kind of hubris.

[Tigermike 3,023]

To say that the right is outraged on this issue because Fox tells them to be is ridiculous and you know it.

ESPECIALLY considering the Catholic base supports Obama in major issues like immigration and healthcare reform. And additionally, the majority of them voted for Obama in the last election.

It's a bit disingenuous to label them as some super right leaning faction of Fox news watching tea party people.

I feel extremely confident in saying that this issue will have ZERO effect on who wins the election this fall. Its only in the news because its a slow week.

So argue away, but its just filling an otherwise slow news week.

What a difference a couple of days make.

On February 7 she's all for it:

Posted: Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Sen. Claire McCaskill this afternoon said she is against "putting barriers" in front of women.

"As someone who believes very much that we should be preventing aboritons, I think we should try very hard to give women universal access to birth control without going into their pockets," she told reporters.

link

On February 9 she's backtracking & craw-fishing big time:

Dems push W.H. on birth control

February 9, 2012 06:50 PM EST

Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Claire McCaskill of Missouri on Thursday became the latest Democrats to indicate they want to see the administration go back to the negotiating table.

“There’s time to get this worked out in a way that respects religious freedom, but also makes sure that women can get birth control,” McCaskill told reporters. “I’m hoping that they will find a compromise where there would be notice or riders or some way that we could get there.”

McCaskill said several Senate Democrats raised the issue at Wednesday’s retreat, at which President Barack Obama spoke.

“A number of people said it in different ways yesterday,” she said Thursday.

,,,,

,,,

McCaskill is facing voters this November, is hopeful that the administration and religious groups can find a “reasonable middle ground.”

,,,

,,,,

But Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye said insisting on such a broad exemption goes beyond trying to protect religious freedom.

“It’s not about religious freedom, if every employee, even at a corporation, is subject to the religious belief of her employer,” Sye said.

link

I guess she heard from a few concerned voters in her district and didn't want to go home with this facing her.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Things that will matter in this election:

JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS

Oh, and jobs.

And while there are signs the worst is behind us, that's far from a slam dunk for Obama. So if he's unable to make that a huge feather in his cap, the election will likely be quite close...which will make unnecessarily angering former supporters and galvanizing an opposition that had been less than enthused even more stupid than it would be any other time.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Why Obama Health Care Rule on Contraception Angers Catholic Democrats

The president and the Democratic Party used to be open to the diversity of religion. Now they’re backing down on a promise--and alienating Catholic voters.

by Michael Sean Winters | February 10, 2012 2:24 AM EST

When President Obama announced two weeks ago that he wouldn’t expand the narrow conscience exemption (/articles/2012/02/09/did-obama-administration-pick-a-fight-on-birth-control-deliberately.html) regarding contraceptives and abortifacients from the new health-care law’s mandates, I knew instantly that this meant I could not vote for him again. I’m not a one-issue voter, but some decisions reveal a great deal about a politician. And this revealed that there was no longer room in the Democratic Party for people like me, who had hoped Obama would make the party more friendly to those of us with religious concerns.

President Obama himself had, during his campaign and in his 2009 address at Notre Dame (/newsweek/2009/05/18/the-lessons-of-notre-dame.html) , said that religiously motivated voters should not be expected to leave our faith at the door when we enter the public square. He spoke for a view of America in which diversity was honored, even for religious institutions that others might find quirky. On several occasions, and in several policy decisions, he commended the work of Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services. He gave my friend, Sister Carol Keehan (/articles/2010/05/21/catholic-nuns-go-rogue.html) , head of the Catholic Health Association, one of the pens with which he signed the Affordable Care Act, recognizing her pivotal role in passing that landmark legislation. The problem with his decision on conscience exemptions is not that the president betrayed me, it is that he betrayed his own vision.

The new Health and Human Services rule requires Catholic hospitals, universities, and social-service providers to pay for insurance coverage of the pills and procedures that the church considers morally objectionable. No exceptions. While many states have required contraceptive coverage, most allowed religious institutions to opt out if the requirements violate their religious beliefs. To be clear, the issue is not contraception. The issue is the conscience rights of religious organizations.

How does this president have such a narrow view? To qualify for the conscience exemption, a religious institution must show it: “(1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a nonprofit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code.” So, essentially, if religion is something you do on, say, Sunday morning, and only with your fellow celebrants, you are exempt from the new mandates.

For Catholics, religion is not something we do only on Sunday and only for ourselves. We do not just hear sermons about helping the poor--we seek to do something to actually help the poor. And, so, we have built a vast network of charities and social-service providers. Oftentimes, those charities were aimed primarily at helping our own, when the church in this country consisted largely of poor immigrants. But, in the 20th century, as Catholics became more affluent, our charities continued to do their work, helping everyone irrespective of their religious affiliation. When a person comes to a Catholic soup kitchen, we ask if they are hungry, we don’t ask if they are Catholic. When a person comes to a Catholic hospital, we ask where it hurts, we don’t ask if they are Catholic.

Catholic colleges and universities, which also would not be covered by the narrow exemption Obama approved, serve a slightly different function within Catholicism. The very idea of a university was developed in the Middle Ages as the Catholic Church recognized it needed institutions dedicated to the intellectual life of faith. For Catholics, faith and reason are not enemies. It was the early 20th-century evangelist Billy Sunday, not Pope Benedict XVI, who said, “If the Word of God says one thing and scholarship says something else, than to hell with scholarship.” The cultivation of universities has been an integral part of Catholic life for centuries. It is integral to our sense of what it means to be a Church. In this country, we often built those colleges and universities because Catholics were not welcome at Harvard or Princeton. Now, our schools welcome all comers but they continue to perform a vital function for the life of the church.

Needless to say, many Catholic schools and hospitals and charities pre-date the development of the tax code with its designation of 501 © 3 status for nonprofits. I don’t care if the IRS considers Notre Dame as a 501 © 3, but I do care that Notre Dame continues to function as a Catholic university.

Part of my anger, then, might be called tribal. Chris Matthews on MSNBC recalled the other night that we Catholics grew up watching A Man for All Seasons, in which Thomas More refuses to violate his conscience and is beheaded for it by Henry VIII. Obama has struck a deep chord in our culture (/cheats/2012/02/08/boehner-contraceptive-rule-won-t-stand.html) , one he may not have recognized, which is damning in itself. But, the protection of conscience used to be something that liberals cared about also. When did liberals stop reading John Locke?

In November, I will be leaving the presidential column on my ballot blank.

The hypocrisy of some secular liberals has become insufferable. For years, they have been building up the “wall of separation” between church and state, but here they are now, clamoring over it as fast as they can to tell Catholic institutions what kind of insurance we have to offer. Please.

The night after the decision, I had friends over for dinner and I announced my intention not to vote for President Obama again. My friends asked, almost in unison, “Are you going to vote for the Republicans?” I replied, “I said I have lost my respect for the president. I haven’t lost my mind, nor my moral compass.” President Obama made a bad decision. The Republicans did not, simultaneously, become less hateful toward the rights of undocumented workers, more concerned about income inequality, nor less bellicose in their thoughts about Iran. Most of all, as long as the Republican Party is flirting, and more than flirting, with the profoundly anti-Christian writings of Ayn Rand, Von Mises, and Hayek, they remain my bitter enemy.

No, in November, I will be leaving the presidential column on my ballot blank. I could never vote for the Republicans as they are. But, I also cannot support a president who seems not to grasp the historic vocation of American liberalism and the Democratic Party. In 1946, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in his book The Age of Jackson, wrote: “American democracy has come to accept the struggle among competing groups for the control of the state as a positive virtue – indeed, as the only foundation for liberty. The business community has been ordinarily the most powerful of these groups, and liberalism in America has been ordinarily the movement on the part of the other sections of society to restrain the power of the business community.” That is the Democratic Party I care about, one that is dedicated to pursuing the common good, not one that is concerned primarily with lifestyle choices.

President Obama, by punching Catholics, many of whom are swing voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada and Colorado, risks that historic vocation of the Democratic Party, and indeed has imperiled the future of the Affordable Care Act, without which we would not be talking about extending preventive services for women to anyone. This is as stupid politically as it is unsound on principle (http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/compromise-not-so-fast) .

While writing this, I received an email from the Center for American Progress that begins, “Dear Michael, It’s a core American value: Every woman deserves access to affordable birth control.” Whatever one thinks about contraception, and most Catholics agree with most Americans that it is a good thing, it is not a “core American value.”

Respect for religious liberty is a core American value. Respect for the diversity of our institutions, religious and secular, is a core American value. By trampling on those values to pursue a policy, no matter how good that policy may be, the president has lost my vote and my respect. I can only vote for a president who grasps first principles and sticks to them. And, I can only respect President Obama again if he recognizes the way this decision violates the promises he made to religiously motivated Democratic Catholics and backs down.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/10/why-obama-health-care-rule-on-contraception-angers-catholic-democrats.html

[Justin5 20]

Looks like we have a compromise.

FACT SHEET: Women’s Preventive Services and Religious Institutions

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, most health insurance plans will cover women’s preventive services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning in August, 2012. This new law will save money for millions of Americans and ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy.

Today, President Obama announced that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.

Under the new policy announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.

The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and addresses important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception. Background on this policy is included below:

• Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.

• Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:

o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

o Establishes a one year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

• The President also announced that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the non-exempted religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

Covering contraception saves money for insurance companies by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception lowered premiums by 10 percent or more.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

My question would be, what of the organizations that self-insure? Since they are not an "insurance company" per se, logic would dictate that they would not have to offer contraceptive coverage. The states that have similar provisions as this new HHS mandate already allow those organizations who self-insure not to be compelled to offer this coverage. Will the Obama administration do the same?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

This is starting to look more like a head fake than an actual compromise. First, the question of how they will handle organizations that self insure is still unanswered, but aside from that, let's lay this out the way I'm interpreting it now.

Say that some Catholic charity has health insurance coverage through ABC Health, who also provides Rx coverage for the charity's employees. In the past a price was negotiated for a plan that excluded coverage for morally objectionable drugs and procedures. It ostensibly was lower than what the plan that included those things would be. Now, the administration is requiring the insurance company the Catholic charity uses to provide its employees who want these items covered to do so free of charge to the employee. Do we honestly think the insurance company is just going to eat that cost themselves? I don't. The next year's coverage plan will simply have those costs built into the plan the Catholic charity pays for and what we have in the end is simply rhetorical or semantic sleight of hand that's occurred rather than a true compromise.

It's as if the administration thought that what the Catholic Church was seeking here was mere political cover rather than a true way to not violate their conscience while providing health care for their employees.

Show me where I'm wrong given the new parameters that were put out today.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Well, right after posting that I read this. It appears I'm not the only one who caught the same drift:

BREAKING: Pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandateby Kathleen Gilbert

Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 EST

WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.

The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change in policy.”

“The White House Fact Sheet is riddled with doublespeak and contradiction,” Smith continued. “It states, for example, that religious employers ‘will not’ have to pay for abortion pills, sterilization and contraception, but their ‘insurance companies’ will. Who pays for the insurance policy? The religious employer.”

In a statement released today, the White House said, “Under the new policy announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works.”

“If a woman works for religious employers with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide contraception coverage but her insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge.”...

...President Obama reiterated the statement in a press conference this afternoon, saying that “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out” to women employed by such institutions to offer birth control “without copays, without hassles.”

The new rule is reportedly similar to coverage laws in Hawaii that allow employers with religious objections not to directly pay for contraception, but instead to direct employees on how to conveniently access all such drugs and procedures.

In an email to the Weekly Standard, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said this week that such an “adjustment” would be not only inadequate, but even worse than the current mandate.

“It would be no improvement to say: ‘Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic,’ he wrote.

Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League also told LifeSiteNews.com that the new rule amounted to a “shell game.” “At the end of the day, religious employers are still required to provide insurance plans that offer free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients in violation of their moral tenets,” he said.

The country’s Catholic bishops have not yet responded to the White House’s statement. However, both Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association (CHA) have expressed satisfaction with the new plan...

...The pro-abortion news source, RH Reality Check, lauded the news, noting that the rule is convenient because women would not have to purchase a separate rider for the contraception coverage.

Developing…

http://www.lifesitenews.com/white-house-religious-employers-wont-have-to-cover-birth-control-but-insura.html

I think the first indication that this isn't a real compromise is that Planned Parenthood and their ilk didn't have even one quibble with the "new" policy. Had there been any real movement toward compromise with the Church, they be screaming bloody murder about it.