Catholic Church speaks out on Obama again

[HonestChieffan]

Obama Offends the Catholic Left
A contraceptive mandate provokes an unnecessary war.
By WILLIAM MCGURN



When Barack Obama secured his party's nomination for president in 2008, one group of Democrats had special reason to cheer.

These were Democrats who were reliably liberal on policy but horrified by the party's sometimes knee-jerk animosity to faith. The low point may have been the 1992 Democratic convention. There the liberal but pro-life governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Sr., was humiliated when he was denied a speaking slot while a pro-choice Republican activist from his home state was allowed.

With Mr. Obama, all this looked to be in the past. In 2006, the Illinois senator delivered a speech declaring that "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." He followed up by appearing at fund-raisers for the anti-abortion Bob Casey Jr. during Mr. Casey's successful run for Sen. Rick Santorum's senate seat.

Sen. Casey went on to co-chair Mr. Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council. Sixteen years after the snub to his dad, he was given a prime-time speaking slot at the 2008 Democratic convention. And Mr. Obama would go on to capture a majority of the Catholic vote.

Now, suddenly, we have headlines about the president's "war on the Catholic Church." Mostly they stem from a Health and Human Services mandate that forces every employer to provide employees with health coverage that not only covers birth control and sterilization, but makes them free. Predictably, the move has drawn fire from the Catholic bishops.

An HHS mandate requires employers to provide health coverage that covers birth control.

Less predictable—and far more interesting—has been the heat from the Catholic left, including many who have in the past given the president vital cover. In a post for the left-leaning National Catholic Reporter, Michael Sean Winter minces few words. Under the headline "J'ACCUSE," he rightly takes the president to the woodshed for the politics of the decision, for the substance, and for how "shamefully" it treats "those Catholics who went out on a limb" for him.

The message Mr. Obama is sending, says Mr. Winters, is "that there is no room in this great country of ours for the institutions our Church has built over the years to be Catholic in ways that are important to us."

Mr. Winters is not alone. The liberal Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, blogged that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience"—and he urged people to fight it. Another liberal favorite, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla., has raised the specter of "civil disobedience" and vowed that he will drop coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in their expressions of discontent by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which alone employs 70,000 people.

In the run-up to the ruling, the president of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins, suggested a modest compromise by which the president could have avoided most of this strife. That would have been by allowing the traditional exemption for religious organizations. That's the same understanding two of the president's own appointees to the Supreme Court just reaffirmed in a 9-0 ruling that recognized a faith-based school's First Amendment right to choose its own ministers without government interference, regardless of antidiscrimination law.

A few years ago Father Jenkins took enormous grief when he invited President Obama to speak at a Notre Dame commencement; now Father Jenkins finds himself publicly disapproving of an "unnecessary government intervention" that puts many organizations such as his in an "untenable position."

Here's just part of what he means by "untenable": Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.

The irony, of course, is that the ruling is being imposed by a Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, working in an administration with a Catholic vice president, Joe Biden. A few years back the voluble Mr. Biden famously threatened to "shove my rosary beads" down the throat of those who dared suggest that his party's positions on social issues put it at odds with people of faith. Does he now mean to include Mr. Winters, Cardinal Mahony and Father Jenkins?

Catholic liberals appreciate that this HHS decision is more than a return to the hostility that sent so many Catholic Democrats fleeing to the Republican Party these past few decades. They understand that if left to stand, this ruling threatens the religious institutions closest to their hearts—those serving Americans in need, such as hospitals, soup kitchens and immigrant services.

Conservatives may enjoy the problems this creates for Mr. Obama this election year. Still, for those who care about issues such as life and marriage and religious liberty that so roil our body politic, we ought to wish Catholic progressives well in their intra-liberal fight. For we shall never arrive at the consensus we hope for if we allow our politics to be divided between a party of faith and a party of animosity to faith.

[HonestChieffan]

Maybe this is what has the church and others upset: I can't believe the numbers are that high but have no idea if it is or not

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/23/5...ifeNews.com%29


(LifeNews) — A new estimate published by the National Right to Life Committee indicates there have been an estimated 54,559,615 abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

Although the March for Life took place today, yesterday was the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions — companion cases from Texas and Georgia that struck down pro-life laws protecting unborn children across the country.

In a new document, “Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends,” NRLC education director Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon estimates that there have been 54,559,615 abortions since 1973 based on data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, a former Planned Parenthood research arm. Guttmacher receives numbers directly from abortion centers themselves and is the prime source for more current figures because the Centers for Disease Control has never tabulated accurate numbers of abortions. The CDC relies on figures from state health departments, some of which rely on voluntary reporting — and it hasn’t had data from some states such as California and New Hampshire for more than a decade.

“Because of these different methods of data collection, GI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform,” O’Bannon says.

[whoman69]

Because the President decides whether abortion is legal or not...

Republicans had the White House, majorities in both houses of Congress and a majority in the Supreme Court for six years and did nothing because it takes away their lynchpin issue, an issue that has many ignoring their stand on tax breaks for millionaires to vote against their own economic self interests.

The Catholic Church has taken the stand that not only is abortion immoral, but that contraception itself should be outlawed. This in a time when the population of this planet just went over 7 billion.

[jiveturkey]

Originally Posted by whoman69

The Catholic Church has taken the stand that not only is abortion immoral, but that contraception itself should be outlawed. This in a time when the population of this planet just went over 7 billion.

For the longest time I thought that over population was a major issue but more and more it looks like we're nearing "peak population"

It seems like every other week or so a birth rate article pops up on my news feed.

Here one that I remember from last week.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/15/145133...ay-of-thinking

[La literatura]

I think it would be hard to allow a distinction for religious organizations to be allowed to opt out of providing some services in their health care plans. I think it would have to be either birth control is included for all, or not included for anyone.

For instance, a Catholic non-profit can be exempted, but a Jewish non-profit must pay the extra? Could a particular Jewish non-profit branch out from the traditional Jewish understanding, and be against contraception?

Why not a corporation who board of directors has a religious belief against contraception? They decide they should be exempted because it's against their beliefs. Is that okay?

[HonestChieffan]

Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate

[orange]

The "simple matter" is for these organizations that just can't bring themselves to get the hell out of the lives of their employees to give their employees a healthcare premium and let them choose their own plans.

But then they don't get to control women's choices, which is really what it's all about.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate

Simple. I'm just talking about carving out an exception, which the article deals with.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by orange

The "simple matter" is for these organizations that just can't bring themselves to get the hell out of the lives of their employees to give their employees a healthcare premium and let them choose their own plans.

But then they don't get to control women's choices, which is really what it's all about.

"Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate".....that accomplishes exactly what you said I believe. No one is forced to do anything, No one is required to do anything that they have a moral opposition to, nor is anyone prevented form getting exactly what they want. Or Heaven forbid, buy their birth control pills. With money. Getting organizations out of peoples lives means no dictates.

[orange]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

"Simple matter of not requiring it from anyone but allowing it if so desired. But then that would lack the heavy hand of government dictate".....that accomplishes exactly what you said I believe.

No, it doesn't. ALL plans must cover birth control. That's the current situation. If these orgs. are allowed to foist incomplete coverage on their employees, those employees will have to go buy another plan with their own money.

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Getting organizations out of peoples lives means no dictates.

By all means, let's do it. Starting with the Catholic Church that many if not most of these employees don't even belong to.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by orange

No, it doesn't. ALL plans must cover birth control. That's the current situation. If these orgs. are allowed to foist incomplete coverage on their employees, those employees will have to go buy another plan with their own money.



By all means, let's do it. Starting with the Catholic Church that many if not most of these employees don't even belong to.

Who says "all plans must cover birth control"? Isn't that a matter of writing into or out of the law? Its not like a dictate from the mothership....people make that rule and if it is as stupid and disabling as it seems to be then it can be changed.


People buying services with their own money. What? That cannot be can it?

[orange]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Who says "all plans must cover birth control"?

The same people who say you must have a license to drive. In this case, it is even less of a demand. No employer has to offer any coverage. They simply pay a fee/tax/whatever it's called for their non-covered employees. And they can avoid even that by simply picking up their premiums for coverage of those employees' own choice.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by orange

The same people who say you must have a license to drive. In this case, it is even less of a demand. No employer has to offer any coverage. They simply pay a fee/tax/whatever it's called for their non-covered employees. And they can avoid even that by simply picking up their premiums for coverage of those employees' own choice.

But that can be changed . It isn't a permeant rule of nature, its just a part of the current law that can be changed and remove this issue 100%. The nature of forced participation and making a one rule fits all at the federal level is exactly why ObamaCare will fail.

And even If I am wrong, if Obama can hand out his special opt outs like candy to every Union that he gets money from, why can't they just simply do same for a church?

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by orange

The same people who say you must have a license to drive. In this case, it is even less of a demand. No employer has to offer any coverage. They simply pay a fee/tax/whatever it's called for their non-covered employees. And they can avoid even that by simply picking up their premiums for coverage of those employees' own choice.

Do you even hear yourself when you say shit like this?

[orange]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

And even If I am wrong, if Obama can hand out his special opt outs like candy to every Union that he gets money from, why can't they just simply do same for a church?

He chose not to. Simple.