Catholic Church ready to declare war on Obama

[RunInRed 16,458]

Again, you don't see because you refuse to see that forcing someone to participate in your actions that they believe are wrong is the same thing. If you don't me that I don't have to get an abortion myself but I must drive a girl who wants one to the abortion clinic, I think you would clearly see that is forcing me to materially participate in something I find abhorrent and goes against my religious beliefs. Using your exact same line of argument, forcing Catholic organizations to perform abortions and pay for them in their health plans is really no different than this new provision. After all, they aren't being forced to go get abortions themselves.

And that's ludicrous. You know it is. Not to mention, just as I said before the converse is true...allowing religious organizations to retain the same conscience exemptions they had before doesn't deny anyone the right to contraception. In essence what you have decided is that because people want to have sex as many times as they wish without consequence, someone else should be forced to subsidize it. Where on earth you get this crazy "right" is anyone's guess.

That's one hell of a stretch. Driving a women to an abortion clinic? Forcing Catholic organizations to perform abortions? Give me a break.

Again, no one is forcing the Catholic Church or any employer to do anything other than offer healthcare options. And let's also drop the Rush Limbaugh BS tag lines: This isn't about subsidizing some ones sex life, it's about access to healthcare. Period.

[RunInRed 16,458]

quote name='RunInRed' timestamp='1330915565' post='801394']

I'm shocked that DailyKos takes that position. Shocked, I tell ya!

Forcing Catholic institutions out of existance so Obama can get campaign money from Big Pharma is exactly the same as genital mutilation. Yep.

Why don't you try addressing the content instead of diverting the conversation to a quip about the source or some nonsense about Big Pharma?

[TigerHeat 9]

So as I read over all the arguments being made for why its perfectly acceptable for the government to dictate these terms to church organizations, let me see if I've got this straight:

--If the government dictates to religious organizations what they must pay for, even if they self-insure and regardless of their beliefs on the matter, there is no violation of the separation of church and state.

--If religious organizations dictate to the government what they can or cannot provide to American citizens, the separation of church and state has been violated.

--Forcing religious organizations to use their money to provide healthcare plans that include things that violate their beliefs = perfectly acceptable by our Constitution. After all, they aren't being forced to use the objectionable items themselves, the employees are and that's their choice.

--Having the government provide school vouchers that parents could, if they chose to do so, use to pay tuition to a private religious school = an unacceptable violation of our Constitution. Even though the government isn't forcibly sending kids to these schools, the parents are and it's their choice.

Crazy me. I always understood the First Amendment to not be so one-sided.

The other side as put by the Supreme Court in 1878 (Reynolds v. United States), must better than I could...

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

...

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Summed up nicely here...

In our secular government, there should be no special privileges for religions. This does not mean that religions are barred from the secular arena. Indeed, as we all know, the ethos of many religions inform our public debate. And when the ethos of certain religions prevail in the debate, through elections, they become our secular law (limited of course by the rights protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights).

But when our secular laws and government adopt public policy that places religious teachings in conflict with our laws, then religious beliefs must not provide immunity from compliance in our secular world with our laws. This is true when the law bars polygamy, genital mutilation, race and gender discrimination and yes, employers offering health coverage for women that includes contraception.

The encroachment of religion on our secular government

Curious phrasing: "no special privileges for religions". What does the wording of the 1st Amendment mean then? To the modern Obamabots, it means "you believe what we tell you it's okay to believe...you are a ward of the State and we will tell you what to think and do"

Does the constant coercive nature of this administration not bother you as Americans? Where did Liberalism run off to???

[TigerHeat 9]

Again, you don't see because you refuse to see that forcing someone to participate in your actions that they believe are wrong is the same thing. If you don't me that I don't have to get an abortion myself but I must drive a girl who wants one to the abortion clinic, I think you would clearly see that is forcing me to materially participate in something I find abhorrent and goes against my religious beliefs. Using your exact same line of argument, forcing Catholic organizations to perform abortions and pay for them in their health plans is really no different than this new provision. After all, they aren't being forced to go get abortions themselves.

And that's ludicrous. You know it is. Not to mention, just as I said before the converse is true...allowing religious organizations to retain the same conscience exemptions they had before doesn't deny anyone the right to contraception. In essence what you have decided is that because people want to have sex as many times as they wish without consequence, someone else should be forced to subsidize it. Where on earth you get this crazy "right" is anyone's guess.

That's one hell of a stretch. Driving a women to an abortion clinic? Forcing Catholic organizations to perform abortions? Give me a break.

Again, no one is forcing the Catholic Church or any employer to do anything other than offer healthcare options. And let's also drop the Rush Limbaugh BS tag lines: This isn't about subsidizing some ones sex life, it's about access to healthcare. Period.

Huh? What "healthcare" is being provided? Is contraception now a basic healthcare right that must be paid for by the Church? If so, can you please let us know which other basic rights the Church will need to pay for?

The options are already available. You just want the Catholics to pay for it to show them they are not above UberCzar Obama's reach.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

That's one hell of a stretch. Driving a women to an abortion clinic? Forcing Catholic organizations to perform abortions? Give me a break.

Instead of thinking that "give me a break" constitutes a rebuttal, how about showing how these examples are materially different from what you think is ok?

Again, no one is forcing the Catholic Church or any employer to do anything other than offer healthcare options. And let's also drop the Rush Limbaugh BS tag lines: This isn't about subsidizing some ones sex life, it's about access to healthcare. Period.

You are forcing them to use their money to provide healthcare "options" you know they believe to be morally wrong.

And it's not BS. The Catholic Church already allows for the use of contraceptive medicines in the treatment of a legitimate medical conditions such as endometriosis or ovarian cysts or sterilizations such as hysterectomies when it's to fix a legitimate medical condition. That's access to "healthcare." What's left over after that is subsidizing your choice of sex life. People wish to have consequence-free sex on someone else's dime.

[TigerHeat 9]

quote name='RunInRed' timestamp='1330915565' post='801394']

I'm shocked that DailyKos takes that position. Shocked, I tell ya!

Forcing Catholic institutions out of existance so Obama can get campaign money from Big Pharma is exactly the same as genital mutilation. Yep.

Why don't you try addressing the content instead of diverting the conversation to a quip about the source or some nonsense about Big Pharma?

The content had no bearing on the discussion at hand. The case you cited had to do with a NEW sect trying to violate community standards that had been around in the West forever. This current situation is a BRAND NEW invention that violates practices that have been around since the founding of the country. Only now, in Obama's US, do we have constant coercion about groups and individuals being forced at gunpoint to pay for "healthcare"

Obama got three times more money from Big Pharma than McCain did in the last election. In fact, they were his largest donors. Who stands to gain from this new mandate? Obama's number one corporate donors. Shockingly, it's just a coincidence. This is really all about basic human rights, and not about whoring for dollars in a campaign that WAS going to be a dogfight.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

...

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

There's a key difference here you seem to be missing. These religious practices infringe on another person's right to live.

Not to mention, for someone that thinks it's out of the question that the same line of reasoning that allows the government to dictate to church organizations that they must pay for these morally objectionable things somehow magically wouldn't allow them to later dictate that they must pay for abortions, are you really comparing not wanting to pay for contraception against your beliefs to human sacrifice and self-immolation?

In our secular government, there should be no special privileges for religions. This does not mean that religions are barred from the secular arena. Indeed, as we all know, the ethos of many religions inform our public debate. And when the ethos of certain religions prevail in the debate, through elections, they become our secular law (limited of course by the rights protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights).

But when our secular laws and government adopt public policy that places religious teachings in conflict with our laws, then religious beliefs must not provide immunity from compliance in our secular world with our laws. This is true when the law bars polygamy, genital mutilation, race and gender discrimination and yes, employers offering health coverage for women that includes contraception.

The encroachment of religion on our secular government

It's amazing that you can sit there with a straight face and equate the desire for someone to pay for you to have sex whenever you wish without the normal results of that choice of action with genital mutilation, polygamy and so on. This line of argumentation is sloppy. And kinda funny because of the aforementioned dismissal that this could ever lead to further intrusions of religious conscience in reproductive health.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The legal case against the Obama HHS policy was (and remains) shooting-fish-in-a-barrel easy. The policy violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion clause, under any interpretation. It is not neutral toward religion, exempts some religious employers and not others, and vests government bureaucrats with broad discretion as to who will be exempted. Even more clearly, the policy violates the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” of 1993, a federal super-statute that protects religious liberty and applies to the operation of all other federal laws unless a new law explicitly removes itself from RFRA’s requirements. Under RFRA, any federal law or regulation that burdens the exercise of religious convictions must give way to such beliefs, unless justified by a “compelling” interest that can be achieved in no other way. The contraception cram-down cannot possibly pass such a stringent legal test: what makes compulsory contraception, paid for by religious groups, “compelling”? How can it be so important, given other exemptions from the requirement?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4777

I hope Obama comes to his senses on this. If he doesn't, I hope he pays a political price for it in November. If that doesn't happen because people love getting free stuff from others and can't see past their own selfishness to more important principles, then I eagerly await the smackdown the courts give it.

Enjoy the Pyrrhic victory while it lasts. This thing is doomed. It's just sad that it will require so much wasted time and money going though the court system for this administration to learn another hard lesson in Constitutional law.

[TigerHeat 9]

quote name='RunInRed' timestamp='1330915565' post='801394']

I'm shocked that DailyKos takes that position. Shocked, I tell ya!

Forcing Catholic institutions out of existance so Obama can get campaign money from Big Pharma is exactly the same as genital mutilation. Yep.

Why don't you try addressing the content instead of diverting the conversation to a quip about the source or some nonsense about Big Pharma?

I see your totally irrelevant link and raise you one current, relevant one:

My link

The Zero Thugocracy goes to court and does NOT defend the HHS mandate. Instead, they argue only that THEY PROMISED TO MODIFY IT IN THE FUTURE. This is comical. Please, Democrats, read this and defend it. I'm ready for the laugh. It reads like they KNOW it's indefensible. "Screenings and prevention". Hilarious. How does Ella or the pill reduce transmission of STD's?

How about the inclusion of costs for "well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and, as relevant here, “the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” Id. at 10-12. FDA approved contraceptive methods include diaphragms, oral contraceptive pills, emergency contraceptives (such as Plan B and Ella), and intrauterine devices."

[RunInRed 16,458]

Instead of thinking that "give me a break" constitutes a rebuttal, how about showing how these examples are materially different from what you think is ok?

Does it really need more than 'give me a break?' Because I'm pretty sure no where in the Healthcare Law does it state anything close to ridiculous scenarios you've alluded to. Argue with facts, not your ridiculous hyperbole which has become increasing littered throughout this thread.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Instead of thinking that "give me a break" constitutes a rebuttal, how about showing how these examples are materially different from what you think is ok?

Does it really need more than 'give me a break?' Because I'm pretty sure no where in the Healthcare Law does it state anything close to ridiculous scenarios you've alluded to. Argue with facts, not your ridiculous hyperbole which has become increasing littered throughout this thread.

No, I'm not letting you off that easy.

Explain to me, with the reasoning that's being given for forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs on contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, why that same line of reasoning cannot be used down the road to force them to violate them further...such as providing RU-486 or paying for abortions or forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services (of course with doctors who don't object to performing them). I mean, you've already breached the barrier where government gets to tell a religious organization what "essential" healthcare is AND which of their beliefs are important enough to let them keep and which ones they will be forced to violate. After that, it's just a matter of adding to the list already created.

You're evading. And that's certainly your right. But if you're not going to answer it, just say so. But enough with the smokescreen and screaming 'hyperbole' everytime you the slippery slope doesn't go the direction you like.

[RunInRed 16,458]

It's amazing that you can sit there with a straight face and equate the desire for someone to pay for you to have sex whenever you wish without the normal results of that choice of action with genital mutilation, polygamy and so on. This line of argumentation is sloppy. And kinda funny because of the aforementioned dismissal that this could ever lead to further intrusions of religious conscience in reproductive health.

It always comes back to same issue for you...

The underlying point stands: when individual religions can start to impose their will over a secular government, it will only exist in name. Are you sure what you don't really want is a Catholic state where what they (you) find 'morally objectionable' is the acceptable behavior that's dictated to all?

[RunInRed 16,458]

The legal case against the Obama HHS policy was (and remains) shooting-fish-in-a-barrel easy. The policy violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion clause, under any interpretation. It is not neutral toward religion, exempts some religious employers and not others, and vests government bureaucrats with broad discretion as to who will be exempted. Even more clearly, the policy violates the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” of 1993, a federal super-statute that protects religious liberty and applies to the operation of all other federal laws unless a new law explicitly removes itself from RFRA’s requirements. Under RFRA, any federal law or regulation that burdens the exercise of religious convictions must give way to such beliefs, unless justified by a “compelling” interest that can be achieved in no other way. The contraception cram-down cannot possibly pass such a stringent legal test: what makes compulsory contraception, paid for by religious groups, “compelling”? How can it be so important, given other exemptions from the requirement?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4777

I hope Obama comes to his senses on this. If he doesn't, I hope he pays a political price for it in November. If that doesn't happen because people love getting free stuff from others and can't see past their own selfishness to more important principles, then I eagerly await the smackdown the courts give it.

Enjoy the Pyrrhic victory while it lasts. This thing is doomed. It's just sad that it will require so much wasted time and money going though the court system for this administration to learn another hard lesson in Constitutional law.

At least your full intent is finally coming out. This isn't about contraception. It's about abortion and more so, a broader healthcare law with which you disagree.

[RunInRed 16,458]

Instead of thinking that "give me a break" constitutes a rebuttal, how about showing how these examples are materially different from what you think is ok?

Does it really need more than 'give me a break?' Because I'm pretty sure no where in the Healthcare Law does it state anything close to ridiculous scenarios you've alluded to. Argue with facts, not your ridiculous hyperbole which has become increasing littered throughout this thread.

No, I'm not letting you off that easy.

Explain to me, with the reasoning that's being given for forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs on contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, why that same line of reasoning cannot be used down the road to force them to violate them further...such as providing RU-486 or paying for abortions or forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services (of course with doctors who don't object to performing them).

You're evading. And that's certainly your right. But if you're not going to answer it, just say so. But enough with the smokescreen and screaming 'hyperbole' everytime you the slippery slope doesn't go the direction you like.

Titan, you're equating ... or at minimum trying to make a downstream link that by asking employers (in this case, the church) to provide access to contraception as part of a healthcare plan to 'forcing them to drive women to abortion clinics and having them perform abortions.' Pardon my language but what kind of f*'d up rational approach to this debate is that? I'm not evading anything. I'm calling your bullsh*t well, bullsh*t. Not only does the law say nothing of the sort, no precedent is established to even point in that direction. To suggest so is either irrational fear or dare I say, hyperbole.

[TigerHeat 9]

Instead of thinking that "give me a break" constitutes a rebuttal, how about showing how these examples are materially different from what you think is ok?

Does it really need more than 'give me a break?' Because I'm pretty sure no where in the Healthcare Law does it state anything close to ridiculous scenarios you've alluded to. Argue with facts, not your ridiculous hyperbole which has become increasing littered throughout this thread.

I've provided many facts. Do you dispute that Big Pharma was a MAJOR campaign donor to Zero in the last cycle? Do you dispute that Big Pharma stands to gain $$$B's from this mandate (at the expense of either the Church or insurance companies AND the Church)?

You've responded with truly irrelevant case law and complaints of hyperbole. You don't have any argument other than "you disagree that this is unconstitutional or draconian or nefarious" (my paraphrase of the Obamabot defenders here).

The ACA DOES require many things you are unaware of. Read the DOJ response to the Beckett complaint for a few eye-openers that we didn't know were going to be coming down the pike once ACA is inflicted/implemented.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The legal case against the Obama HHS policy was (and remains) shooting-fish-in-a-barrel easy. The policy violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion clause, under any interpretation. It is not neutral toward religion, exempts some religious employers and not others, and vests government bureaucrats with broad discretion as to who will be exempted. Even more clearly, the policy violates the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” of 1993, a federal super-statute that protects religious liberty and applies to the operation of all other federal laws unless a new law explicitly removes itself from RFRA’s requirements. Under RFRA, any federal law or regulation that burdens the exercise of religious convictions must give way to such beliefs, unless justified by a “compelling” interest that can be achieved in no other way. The contraception cram-down cannot possibly pass such a stringent legal test: what makes compulsory contraception, paid for by religious groups, “compelling”? How can it be so important, given other exemptions from the requirement?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4777

I hope Obama comes to his senses on this. If he doesn't, I hope he pays a political price for it in November. If that doesn't happen because people love getting free stuff from others and can't see past their own selfishness to more important principles, then I eagerly await the smackdown the courts give it.

Enjoy the Pyrrhic victory while it lasts. This thing is doomed. It's just sad that it will require so much wasted time and money going though the court system for this administration to learn another hard lesson in Constitutional law.

At least your full intent is finally coming out. This isn't about contraception. It's about abortion and more so, a broader healthcare law with which you disagree.

No, my full intent is exactly what I have told you now at least three times. I'm not sure at this point whether you don't read my posts at all or just enjoy purposely misrepresenting me. This is about the violation of freedom of conscience for religious people and organizations. Period. I see the danger for abortion to eventually to slide in on the same rails greased by this current mandate, but even if all that was at play here was contraception I WOULD FEEL NO DIFFERENT ABOUT IT. Get. This. Through. Your. Head.

And I didn't really disagree with the healthcare law per se. Like many people there were things I liked and things I didn't. I thought there were perhaps better ways to do some of it. But I haven't been an ACA hater by any stretch of the imagination and I defy you to show where I have been. This is a bogus accusation and you know it.

[TigerHeat 9]

It's amazing that you can sit there with a straight face and equate the desire for someone to pay for you to have sex whenever you wish without the normal results of that choice of action with genital mutilation, polygamy and so on. This line of argumentation is sloppy. And kinda funny because of the aforementioned dismissal that this could ever lead to further intrusions of religious conscience in reproductive health.

It always comes back to same issue for you...

The underlying point stands: when individual religions can start to impose their will over a secular government, it will only exist in name. Are you sure what you don't really want is a Catholic state where what they (you) find 'morally objectionable' is the acceptable behavior that's dictated to all?

The point SHOULD be that the 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with the exercise of religion. That's not the government's right. It's not their 1st amendment, nor is it yours. It's mine. I'm not coming to your organization and taking your money at gunpoint to give to purposes you find immoral. Why would you do that to me? I know the answer, and you do too. The modern Democrat party craves instruction and control. "Someone please tell us how to live".

A "Catholic state?" Talk about hyperbole...

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Titan, you're equating ... or at minimum trying to make a downstream link that by asking employers (in this case, the church) to provide access to contraception as part of a healthcare plan to 'forcing them to drive women to abortion clinics and having them perform abortions.' Pardon my language but what kind of f*'d up rational approach to this debate is that? I'm not evading anything. I'm calling your bullsh*t well, bullsh*t. Not only does the law say nothing of the sort, no precedent is established to even point in that direction. To suggest so is either irrational fear or dare I say, hyperbole.

I made the comparison because both are requiring someone to materially participate in something they believe to be immoral according to the tenets of their religion. One is with money, one is with time and other resouces.

Now, I'll ask again, as I rephrased it...explain to me how the reasoning used to push these violations of conscience on religious groups cannot be used to later force them to provide RU-486 or other abortion procedures in their healthcare plans under the banner of "essential" healthcare.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It's amazing that you can sit there with a straight face and equate the desire for someone to pay for you to have sex whenever you wish without the normal results of that choice of action with genital mutilation, polygamy and so on. This line of argumentation is sloppy. And kinda funny because of the aforementioned dismissal that this could ever lead to further intrusions of religious conscience in reproductive health.

It always comes back to same issue for you...

The underlying point stands: when individual religions can start to impose their will over a secular government, it will only exist in name. Are you sure what you don't really want is a Catholic state where what they (you) find 'morally objectionable' is the acceptable behavior that's dictated to all?

Are you still trying to make this insane argument that somehow the Catholics are trying to prevent everyone from having contraception? Hell, they aren't even doing anything to prevent their own employees from being allowed to get it. They just aren't going to be forced to provide it in the healthcare plans they pay for. That's how the 1st Amendment normally works...neither side is dictating anything to the other. Your version swings all the power to one side where the gov't gets to dictate to religious organizations and they can submit or get out of the public arena.

Your underlying point isn't a point at all because what you propose is happening doesn't exist. No one is being denied contraception. No one is proposing laws to take contraception off the market. No one is proposing disallowing insurance companies from covering it. Nothing of the sort.

[RunInRed 16,458]

Do you dispute that Big Pharma was a MAJOR campaign donor to President OBama in the last cycle? Do you dispute that Big Pharma stands to gain $$$B's from this mandate?

No I do not.

- Do you dispute the fact under the Healthcare Reform Law 30 Million+ more Americans will have healthcare coverage?

- Do you dispute the fact the government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses? That doctors will not become government employees and that further, the U.S. government actually intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada? Do you dispute the facts the key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place? Lastly, do you dispute the fact that the only thing the government is creating is health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices?

[RunInRed 16,458]

Now, I'll ask again, as I rephrased it...explain to me how the reasoning used to push these violations of conscience on religious groups cannot be used to later force them to provide RU-486 or other abortion procedures in their healthcare plans under the banner of "essential" healthcare.

Well, for starters, this issue has been DIRECTLY addressed in the legislation. To not know this is to not have been paying attention as it was paramount to the bill's passage...

• Prohibits the Secretary of HHS from requiring the coverage of any abortion services as part of the essential health benefits for any qualified health plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
  
• Allows the insurance company to decide whether or not to include coverage of abortion services, including the Hyde abortion exceptions, in a qualified health insurance plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
  
• Prohibits insurance companies from using federal funds, including federal tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, to pay for abortion services except for those services allowable under the Hyde amendment (pg. 2071);
  
• Requires an insurance company that chooses to offer a plan in a State Exchange with abortion coverage, beyond the Hyde abortion exceptions, to collect a separate second premium payment from each enrollee for the cost of the abortion coverage (pgs. 2071-2072 & 2074-2075);
  
• Requires the insurance company to deposit all separate payments into a separate account that consists solely of abortion premium payments and that it is used exclusively to pay for such services (pgs. 2072-2074);
  
• Requires the state health insurance commissioners to ensure that insurance companies comply with these requirements in accordance with guidance and accounting standards set by the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office (pg. 2075)
  
• Requires insurance companies that offer general abortion coverage as part of a qualified health plan to provide a notice of coverage in the summary of benefits and coverage explanation (pg. 2076);
  
• Allows states to pass a law prohibiting the inclusion of abortion coverage in plans offered in a state health insurance Exchange (pg. 2069);
  
• Requires the director of the Office of Public Management to ensure that there is at least one private, multi-state qualified health plan offered in each state insurance Exchange that does not provide coverage of abortion services beyond the Hyde exceptions (pgs. 2087-2088);
  
• Prohibits insurance companies offering qualified health plans from discriminating against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions (pg. 2076);
  
• Prohibits the preemption of state laws regarding abortion (pg. 2077);
  
• Maintains current Federal laws relative to conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion (pg. 2077);
  
• Establishes and provides $250 million for programs to support vulnerable pregnant women (pgs. 2170-2173); and
  
• Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable so that lower income families can access the tax credit (pgs 2400-2407).
  

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

[RunInRed 16,458]

The legal case against the Obama HHS policy was (and remains) shooting-fish-in-a-barrel easy. The policy violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion clause, under any interpretation. It is not neutral toward religion, exempts some religious employers and not others, and vests government bureaucrats with broad discretion as to who will be exempted. Even more clearly, the policy violates the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” of 1993, a federal super-statute that protects religious liberty and applies to the operation of all other federal laws unless a new law explicitly removes itself from RFRA’s requirements. Under RFRA, any federal law or regulation that burdens the exercise of religious convictions must give way to such beliefs, unless justified by a “compelling” interest that can be achieved in no other way. The contraception cram-down cannot possibly pass such a stringent legal test: what makes compulsory contraception, paid for by religious groups, “compelling”? How can it be so important, given other exemptions from the requirement?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4777

I hope Obama comes to his senses on this. If he doesn't, I hope he pays a political price for it in November. If that doesn't happen because people love getting free stuff from others and can't see past their own selfishness to more important principles, then I eagerly await the smackdown the courts give it.

Enjoy the Pyrrhic victory while it lasts. This thing is doomed. It's just sad that it will require so much wasted time and money going though the court system for this administration to learn another hard lesson in Constitutional law.

At least your full intent is finally coming out. This isn't about contraception. It's about abortion and more so, a broader healthcare law with which you disagree.

No, my full intent is exactly what I have told you now at least three times. I'm not sure at this point whether you don't read my posts at all or just enjoy purposely misrepresenting me. This is about the violation of freedom of conscience for religious people and organizations. Period. I see the danger for abortion to eventually to slide in on the same rails greased by this current mandate, but even if all that was at play here was contraception I WOULD FEEL NO DIFFERENT ABOUT IT. Get. This. Through. Your. Head.

And I didn't really disagree with the healthcare law per se. Like many people there were things I liked and things I didn't. I thought there were perhaps better ways to do some of it. But I haven't been an ACA hater by any stretch of the imagination and I defy you to show where I have been. This is a bogus accusation and you know it.

I'll take you at your word...

[RunInRed 16,458]

Are you still trying to make this insane argument that somehow the Catholics are trying to prevent everyone from having contraception? Hell, they aren't even doing anything to prevent their own employees from being allowed to get it. They just aren't going to be forced to provide it in the healthcare plans they pay for. That's how the 1st Amendment normally works...neither side is dictating anything to the other. Your version swings all the power to one side where the gov't gets to dictate to religious organizations and they can submit or get out of the public arena.

I know what your side looks like ... it's called the Blunt amendment. It's the slippery slope argument we've already discussed. When you allow 'morally objectionable' exemptions, where does it stop? The irony is, we're both making the same argument ... on the opposite sides of the debate.

Your underlying point isn't a point at all because what you propose is happening doesn't exist. No one is being denied contraception. No one is proposing laws to take contraception off the market. No one is proposing disallowing insurance companies from covering it. Nothing of the sort.

Again, see the underlying intent in the Blunt amendment which was supported by every single GOP member in the US Senate sans Olympia Snowe.

[TigerHeat 9]

Do you dispute that Big Pharma was a MAJOR campaign donor to President OBama in the last cycle? Do you dispute that Big Pharma stands to gain $$$B's from this mandate?

No I do not.

- Do you dispute the fact under the Healthcare Reform Law 30 Million+ more Americans will have healthcare coverage?

- Do you dispute the fact the government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses? That doctors will not become government employees and that further, the U.S. government actually intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada? Do you dispute the facts the key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place? Lastly, do you dispute the fact that the only thing the government is creating is health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices?

None of that has ANY relevance. I never disputed any of that and you know it. In fact, we weren't even discussing that. The ACA wasn't what was being discussed...the new HHS mandate WAS. Then I began discussing the TRUE motivation for this NEW coercive attack on a religious organization, and you brought up some silliness about hyperbole.

I believe that ACA is TRULY in danger of never being enacted now that Zero has stuck his tool in this hornets nest. It's going to burn. He won't be able to trick a Stupak again. In fact, by the time the Vatican finishes weighing in on this (they are formulating a response for the millions of Catholics, you know? oh, no you didn't...) the cover that libdem "Catholics" have had will likely be GONE. There are NUMEROUS bishops talking about using the ONE stick they have and never use. If they swing that stick GOODBYE libdem Catholics. No more "Catholic block vote". Nope. It'll be five and five for all but Nancy. We've already begun receiving letters regarding the proper way to address this in Catholic thought...something that the formerly very-liberal (not referring to politically here) Church rarely did.

There WILL still be a monolithic Catholic vote. It just will no longer be friendly to this crew of Catholicism haters.

The current sentiment is "we won't be fooled again" (cf. Cardinal Dolan's letter) Heh.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

You know as well as I do that the so-called protections against abortion funding were hotly contested, as to whether they really provided an effective firewall against federally funded abortions. They mostly amount to accounting loopholes. So much so that Obama added a powerless "signing statement" to the document.