Dear Mr. President:

[TitanTiger 20,473]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/obama-tells-faith-based-groups-must-refer-refugee-children-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

That's for sure. At least he is good at that.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

[AURaptor 1,122]

So much for fair and equal treatment under the law, huh?

[TitanTiger 20,473]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

That seems to be to be quite a stretch. They aren't being forced to do anything. They just will not be federally funded.

[TitanTiger 20,473]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

That seems to be to be quite a stretch. They aren't being forced to do anything. They just will not be federally funded.

Not a stretch at all. When you force them to choose between helping you help people or violating the tenets of their faith, you have absolutely forced them to withdraw from these programs. Because violating their faith is not an option.

It means they will have to significantly scale back who they can help. These charities EXIST to help people like this. And they do it better than anyone. They shouldn't be put in such a position at all. There is nothing about being a conduit for federal funds to help people that should entail a demand like this.

It says "your contributions aren't welcome if you don't do things that violate your faith." It seems aimed primarily at driving a wedge between people of faith who want to help and the public sphere and it's utterly indefensible.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

That seems to be to be quite a stretch. They aren't being forced to do anything. They just will not be federally funded.

Not a stretch at all. When you force them to choose between helping you help people or violating the tenets of their faith, you have absolutely forced them to withdraw from these programs. Because violating their faith is not an option.

It means they will have to significantly scale back who they can help. These charities EXIST to help people like this. And they do it better than anyone. They shouldn't be put in such a position at all. There is nothing about being a conduit for federal funds to help people that should entail a demand like this.

It says "your contributions aren't welcome if you don't do things that violate your faith." It seems aimed primarily at driving a wedge between people of faith who want to help and the public sphere and it's utterly indefensible.

Sorry but, I respectfully disagree. I think they can still help, just without federal money. I also believe that you do not violate your faith by failing to impose it on others.

[TitanTiger 20,473]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

That seems to be to be quite a stretch. They aren't being forced to do anything. They just will not be federally funded.

Not a stretch at all. When you force them to choose between helping you help people or violating the tenets of their faith, you have absolutely forced them to withdraw from these programs. Because violating their faith is not an option.

It means they will have to significantly scale back who they can help. These charities EXIST to help people like this. And they do it better than anyone. They shouldn't be put in such a position at all. There is nothing about being a conduit for federal funds to help people that should entail a demand like this.

It says "your contributions aren't welcome if you don't do things that violate your faith." It seems aimed primarily at driving a wedge between people of faith who want to help and the public sphere and it's utterly indefensible.

Sorry but, I respectfully disagree. I think they can still help, just without federal money. I also believe that you do not violate your faith by failing to impose it on others.

Of course they will help. That's what they do. It's their reason for being. But they will get to help fewer people. And the government will never do it as well or with as much caring and compassion as they did. And they now know their government doesn't see them as a partner, but as an obstacle and an annoyance at best.

And your "imposing it on others" trope is downright Orwellian.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I just want this to be clear: This is unimpeded access to "emergency medical treatment, crisis intervention services, emergency contraception, and sexually transmitted infections prophylaxis, in accordance with professionally accepted standards of care, where appropriate under medical or mental health professional standards" for cases of:

UNDERAGE CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN RAPED.

That's what this rule is for. If you like the idea of withholding medical care from children who are pregnant because they were RAPED, then I don't know how to address that.

Also, and very germane to the complaints listed here, and STRAIGHT FROM THE FEDERAL RULE:

"ORR is mindful that some potential and existing grantees and contractors may have religious or moral objections to providing certain kinds of services, including referrals (for example, for emergency contraception). ORR is committed to providing resources and referrals for the full range of legally permissible services to UCs who need them, helping to facilitate access to these options, and doing so in a timely fashion and in a manner that respects the diverse religious and cultural backgrounds of UCs. At the same time, ORR is also committed to finding ways for organizations to partner with us, even if they object to providing specific services on religious grounds.

The following are ways in which organizations with such objections may be able to participate in human services programs. (1) Serve as sub-grantees—In many cases, sub-grantees do not need to provide every service for which the grantee is responsible, so long as all UCs served have access to all services required under the grant in a timely and respectful manner. Grantees must ensure that their overall program provides all of the required services, but grantees can use sub-grantees to provide some services. Under this arrangement, as long as other sub-grantees are readily available to provide UCs with the objected-to services, a sub-grantee may participate in the grant program while declining to provide services to which they have a religious objection. (2) Apply in a consortium—A second possibility is for faith-based organizations to apply in a consortium with one or more partners. The consortium would allow for a division of responsibility consistent with each organization's principles. Again, as long as UCs have timely access to all required services, different organizations could divide up the services provided. (3) Notify grantor—In some circumstances, another way in which the grantee could ensure access to any program services would be for the grantee to notify the federal program office responsible for the grant if a UC, who has been informed of the available services, may qualify for or be entitled to any program services, including referrals, to which the organization has a religious objection. It would then be the federal agency's responsibility to secure the provision of the needed services, or, if appropriate, transfer the case to another provider.

For example, if a UC requested emergency contraception but the grantee that housed the UC objected to providing such services on religious or moral grounds, the grantee need only provide notification to ORR in accordance with ORR policies and procedures that the UC requested such services. The grantee is not required to provide further information or services to the UC in relation to the UC's request. Once notified, ORR would then have its Federal staff coordinate the provision of such services for the UC, and the grantee need only allow the UC access to the Federal staff member in order to provide the services. If necessary, the ORR staff member would also coordinate transportation to and from the location where the services are provided."

Edited: Literally, read this last paragraph over and over. It says right here that the ONLY responsibility that one of the organizations has is to notify the government that the child requested the care, and then its hands are washed clean of any further responsibility. To claim that a requirement of notifying the government that someone has requested LEGAL MEDICAL CARE is somehow infringing on religious liberty is ludicrous. Substitute "emergency contraception" with "treatment for this here gunshot wound", and then all of a sudden it turns into medical neglect. This is trying to suppress someone's constitutional rights - which is the same thing that you're mad about. Your constitutional rights do not give you the right to strip someone else of theirs.

[TitanTiger 20,473]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

We refuse. And get ready to lose the same way you did to Hobby Lobby over it.

Obama Tells Faith-Based Groups they Must Refer Refugee Children for Abortions

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. | February 19, 2015

NEW YORK, February 20 (C-Fam) The Obama administration is getting ready to issue new rules requiring charities to provide abortions to child refugees entering the US without their parents. Faith-based groups say this is a contravention of the rights of parents and a violation of the conscience rights of faith-based groups helping resettle the children.

The public has until Monday to comment on the fast-tracked new rules, which were issued on Christmas Eve. The administration says it would be “contrary to the public interest” to wait “until a public notice and comment process is complete.” The administration also asserts that no Congressional review is required and that there is no issue with federalism or any impact on families in the new guidance.

The rules require faith-based providers to make referrals for emergency contraception, partner with groups which provide abortion, or notify the federal government which would make arrangements for the abortion. If groups do not do so, they are not eligible for federal aid. Staff associated with Catholic agencies told the Friday Fax that they had conveyed their objection to the new rules to the Obama administration. They are required to comply no later than June 24, 2015.

The rules also require care provider facilities to train their staff in “LGBTQI” and identifying “transgender and intersex” unaccompanied children. The rules assert that “‘Gender’ refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex,” and that “This term is not to be confused with ‘sex’ [which] refers to a person’s biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex.”

To help care workers identify a child’s sex the rules advise, “There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.” “‘Gender identity,’ refers to one’s sense of oneself as a male, female, or transgender,” it says.

Several human rights instruments require nations to protect children from predation by adults. In cases where parents are still alive, this includes their rights to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Even so, in 2013 UNICEF issued a report claiming that children as young as ten years of age have the “right” to sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent. To justify the assertion, UNICEF referred to the comments by the committee that oversees implementation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That same committee told the Holy See last year that its opposition to teen sex and abortion represented a violation of the treaty.

Faith-based experts told the Friday Fax their comment on the proposed rule is that the requirement to perform, partner or refer for abortion or contraception are a violation of conscience rights.

View online at: https://c-fam.org/fr...dren-abortions/

Good ol' Obama. Always good for a reliable middle finger to people of faith.

If the only challenge is federal aid, I do not see this as giving the "middle finger to people of faith".

What you are saying is, if you aren't willing to violate your faith, you're not fit to serve with us. It is totally a middle finger. These charities have served the poor for decades and at one time in our history, our government saw them as allies, and that giving them the money to help these people was worthwhile and better than setting up separate government programs or trying to find purely secular organizations. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. So unless these groups can either get the administration to stop forcing them to violate their consciences or win in the courts, they will be forced to withdraw. It's a terrible way to garner all people of good will to do something good.

That seems to be to be quite a stretch. They aren't being forced to do anything. They just will not be federally funded.

Not a stretch at all. When you force them to choose between helping you help people or violating the tenets of their faith, you have absolutely forced them to withdraw from these programs. Because violating their faith is not an option.

It means they will have to significantly scale back who they can help. These charities EXIST to help people like this. And they do it better than anyone. They shouldn't be put in such a position at all. There is nothing about being a conduit for federal funds to help people that should entail a demand like this.

It says "your contributions aren't welcome if you don't do things that violate your faith." It seems aimed primarily at driving a wedge between people of faith who want to help and the public sphere and it's utterly indefensible.

Sorry but, I respectfully disagree. I think they can still help, just without federal money. I also believe that you do not violate your faith by failing to impose it on others.

If the federal money is necessary to operate and that is taken away they are not helping anyone. I don't pretend to know if that is the case but, what if it is?

[TitanTiger 20,473]

If the federal money is necessary to operate and that is taken away they are not helping anyone. I don't pretend to know if that is the case but, what if it is?

It's not likely to be the case. Almost all these faith based groups were around before the government came along and wanted to partner with them. They will go back to helping people on their own like before, they just won't be able to help as many people.

The government used to see organizations like these as key allies that were doing it right. So they decided to offer them federal money to expand their programs and reach more people. It was better than trying to set up new government programs to do the same thing or searching for enough purely secular groups to fill in the gaps. This is a signal that their contributions aren't really valued anymore. If they were, they wouldn't put them in such a position to choose between continuing to reach more people and violating their consciences. But that's pretty much Obama's MO, so I shouldn't be shocked.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

Read it again, TT. That's clearly not what the rule says, and to say differently is to be willfully blind at best, lying at worst.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

It's nearly laughable that you could be so outraged at a perceived threat at your own constitutional rights while so wantonly trampling all over someone else's. You may not like abortions, but until Roe v Wade is overturned, that right to access is as constitutionally guaranteed as your right to disagree with them based on your religion.

This rule is carefully written so that as soon as the UC requests emergency contraception, the UC becomes someone else's responsibility and the organization has washed their hands of it. The other option is that the religious charity refuses to hand over the UC for the requested LEGAL MEDICAL CARE, which is pretty much kidnapping (or, if they don't notify the government, abandonment).

[TitanTiger 20,473]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

Read it again, TT. That's clearly not what the rule says, and to say differently is to be willfully blind at best, lying at worst.

I read it. It is tantamount to referring someone for an abortion. You can try to make it sound like that's not what it is, but that is what it is. There is no moral difference is the religious organization being expected to call Planned Parenthood and calling some government agent to let them know someone wants to get an abortion and could you please come pick them up?

[TitanTiger 20,473]

It's nearly laughable that you could be so outraged at a perceived threat at your own constitutional rights while so wantonly trampling all over someone else's.

It is not trampling on anyone's constitutional rights for me to not offer assistance or referral in procuring an abortion.

You may not like abortions, but until Roe v Wade is overturned, that right to access is as constitutionally guaranteed as your right to disagree with them based on your religion.

And the rules as they are, before this change, did not deny anyone that access.

This rule is carefully written so that as soon as the UC requests emergency contraception, the UC becomes someone else's responsibility and the organization has washed their hands of it. The other option is that the religious charity refuses to hand over the UC for the requested LEGAL MEDICAL CARE, which is pretty much kidnapping.

No one is holding anyone hostage here. You're expecting the organization to call and help facilitate transportation to an abortion clinic.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

Read it again, TT. That's clearly not what the rule says, and to say differently is to be willfully blind at best, lying at worst.

I read it. It is tantamount to referring someone for an abortion. You can try to make it sound like that's not what it is, but that is what it is. There is no moral difference is the religious organization being expected to call Planned Parenthood and calling some government agent to let them know someone wants to get an abortion and could you please come pick them up?

Well, guess what: if you don't do that, you are holding someone against their will. Great, now you've trampled not only on someone's constitutionally guaranteed right to an abortion, but you are also falsely imprisoning them by not letting them go do what they want.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

That is unfortunate. Perhaps helping people means counseling them but, ultimately respecting their freewill? I would not see that as compromising my faith, at all.

[TitanTiger 20,473]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

That is unfortunate. Perhaps helping people means counseling them but, ultimately respecting their freewill? I would not see that as compromising my faith, at all.

There's respecting their free will and there's forcing them to facilitate the killing of a child. No one is saying the charity should be able to hold anyone hostage or actively prevent them from exercising their free will. But they shouldn't be asked to help commit evil in any way.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

No one is holding anyone hostage here. You're expecting the organization to call and help facilitate transportation to an abortion clinic.

The rule clearly states that the UC will be transferred to someone else's custody. Not letting that happen (even if it is by omission) is kidnapping. Full stop. If someone requested emergency care and you deliberately refused to hear their request, you are violating the law. In this case, not only the law, but a constitutionally guaranteed right.

What would you have these organizations do? The underage forcibly pregnant child requests the care, and they should ignore it? Tell the kid to shut their trap? Throw them out on the streets?

Honestly, what do you want to have done that satisfies both of the rights?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I will only help you if you agree with my faith.

[TitanTiger 20,473]

I will only help you if you agree with my faith.

Correction: I will help you in every possible way that my faith allows given my resources and abilities. I will not help you commit grave evil.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I will only help you if you agree with my faith.

Correction: I will help you in every possible way that my faith allows given my resources and abilities. I will not help you commit grave evil.

The question still stands, then. If they ask, what should the organization do that upholds both sets of rights?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

"We don't kill babies here. But I can refer you to someone who can help you find a place to do so" is not an option.

That is unfortunate. Perhaps helping people means counseling them but, ultimately respecting their freewill? I would not see that as compromising my faith, at all.

There's respecting their free will and there's forcing them to facilitate the killing of a child. No one is saying the charity should be able to hold anyone hostage or actively prevent them from exercising their free will. But they shouldn't be asked to help commit evil in any way.

You aren't committing or facilitating evil. You counsel against it. You offer care and adoption services. However, you do not simply kick them to the curb if they choose abortion. These are children. These are refugees. They are likely scared to death. Casting them out with condemnation doesn't seem right to me.