Weekend question: Do you think Catholic groups will cave to the Obama administration on contraception coverage?
Yesterday the Obama administration announced it would force religious institutions such as hospitals and universities to begin covering abortifacient contraceptives and the morning-after pill beginning January 1, 2014.
As an aside, here was an ironic quote, via the Associated Press:
Catholic hospitals, which defied the church’s bishops to back Obama’s law in Congress, immediately sought a broader exemption, only to be denied on Friday.
Hope Sister Keehan and the Catholic Health Association are happy, although the AP indicates they’re not. Too late.
Whatever, what do you think will happen next? Will Catholic organizations sue? Will they defy the mandate, entering into civil disobedience? Or will they cave?
Jan.21, 2012 8:09 am |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So much for “separation of church at state” that the pro-aborts are always tossing around!
For that matter, so much for “pro-choice” and “don’t like an abortion? don’t get one.”
Our Blessed Lord was very good at shutting down attempts to corner Him in the gospel. But ultimately, He ticked them off unto death. The Church is holding an Ace here: they can threaten to get out of the health care biz altogether! What would that do? The bishops should hold that out and mean it. Still, the Lord of the World must have his day….
I hope they don’t cave. I pray they don’t cave. I just don’t have a whole lot of faith in our American bishops. I hope God gives them the strength of a hundred lions!
For something like the pill – what are the stats in regards to abortions causes – is there a certain percentage of the time that they prevent pregnancies and a certain percentage of time that conception happens, and it prevent implantation?
Ex – For Catholics (I am not one) I do not believe that is the issue – as most of them simply do not believe in any form of birth control whether is causes abortions or not.
However, to answer your question (a good one!), it is completely impossible at this time to know for sure because we do not have a pregnancy test that can read pregnancies within the first few days.
No matter how slim the chances, though, I will never go on the pill. If it kills even one of my children, it is too many!
But for more info you can read this book for $1.99 on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Control-Cause-Abortions-ebook/dp/B0045JL57Y/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326227676&sr=8-2
Although I appreciate the topic, one thing came to mind immediately: this is not a Catholic issue – this is a Pro-Life issue. Yes I recognize that the Obama mandates affects “Catholic” institutions and hospitals. But the issue of contraception should never be split along religious lines.
I believe it is a tactic of the secularists to divide and conquer all religious groups or rather it is the goal of the secularists to keep religious groups divided on issues that they have in common. Yes, Catholics are againsts contraception but so are many evangelicals. The fact that Catholics don’t like any contraception does not mean they do not see the moral difference between contraceptions that truly contracept and those that are abortafacients.
The fact that Obama backstabbed the liberal Catholics is really going to annoy them. If there is one thing I know about liberal Catholics they don’t like to be publicly embarrassed and effectively told they are wrong. These liberal Catholics are genuinely sincere folk, and I am sure they thought they were doing good by supporting Obama’s health care bill. Obama has just made a whole bunch of enemies. It is not even about the issue of contraception anymore, it is a trust issue. The liberal Catholics thought they could trust Obama and now they feel they can’t. Who would’ve thought Obama would help re-unite liberal and orthodox Catholics!!
I hope the Catholic hospitals and Bishops will pursue whatever legal means are open to them. Failing that, I hope on January 1, 2014 all of the Catholic Hospitals refuse to hand out these abortafacients and contraceptions. It will be strange for the Church to be civil disobedient but she has done it before.
A few Catholic institutions will not give in but the vast majority will. Our bishops will only fight this with a few words here and there. then Catholics will vote Obama back into the white House for four more years so he can finish the job of destroying religious liberty.
So negative, Kevin!!
I have to agree with Kevin. I know so many “Catholics” who voted for Obama. Knowing full well the evil he supports. I think a large majority of Catholics (almost every Catholic that I know) is “Catholic in name only”. They don’t know the teachings of the church or care. They go to mass a couple times of year and think thats okay. They don’t live their faith. They have no faith!
My own husband says he is “Catholic”. That is such utter nonsense to me. When I was going through RCIA he couldn’t explain his faith. He couldn’t answer any questions. He never went o mass with me even though I felt odd and didn’t know what to do at mass. For the short time I was Catholic, I was a better Catholic than he was. I tried to learn what the church taught. I tried to live it.
So unfortunately, unless the Catholic church stops tolerating the wolves in the midst of the true sheep… you are going to see “Catholics” abandoning the values of the church.
Its a pessimistic outlook, I know. But I believe its the truth.
”Failing that, I hope on January 1, 2014 all of the Catholic Hospitals refuse to hand out these abortafacients and contraceptions.”
The issue is about health plans for Catholic hospitals and institutions of higher ed being mandated to cover contraception, as well as other aspects of women’s reproductive health, without co-payment. It might surprise you, but a number of them already do. It’s not about “handing out” anything. And if you want Catholic hospitals to stop “handing out” Plan B, they would then be responsible for forcing women to give birth to their rapists babies which you folks think is just fine. And btw, Plan B doesn’t cause an abortion if a woman is pregnant. It just prevents implantation which medical science says is the beginning of a pregnancy as opposed to the Catholic definition of pregnancy beginning at conception. And while it’s fine and dandy for the Catholic church to force Catholic women to abide by holy father’s edicts, it’s discriminatory for them to force their ideology on the many women, working or studying in Catholic institution, who are not Catholic. If Catholic institutions want to continue to receive federal, taxpayer supported dollars, then they should abide by the law which covers contraception – which is legal.
This is a victory for American women who should not be subjected to the misogynistic beliefs of certain men in black. That the Obama administration didn’t cave to the theocrats is a testament to the efforts of those who are pro-choice and who really rallied on this one. Vox populi and all that – a concept that is alien to the non- democratic and patriarchal Catholic church which sees women as breeders making more Catholic babies.
Guess it’s a good thing there more to America than Catholics!
Oh, man!! it’s not even noon yet, and CC has already played the misogyny card!
Ooh, those scary MEN in BLACK!!
How about that scary BLACK MAN???
The hospitals and most of the bishops will cave. We are too dependent upon federal money for the operation of our healthcare.
The alternative is the “nuclear option.” Close all the hospitals, in order to avoid cooperating with material evil.
We aren’t ruthless enough to do this…. but Obama is ruthless enough to let it happen. Remember how Obama was ready to let the whole US go into default, if House Republicans refused to fund every cent to Planned Parenthood? Obama would gladly let the Catholic hospitals close, and then blame the bishops for ruthlessly imposing their morality on American women.
I hope the Catholic hospitals and Bishops will pursue whatever legal means are open to them. Failing that, I hope on January 1, 2014 all of the Catholic Hospitals refuse to “hand out”/cover these abortafacients and contraceptions. It will be strange for the Church to be civil disobedient but she has done it before.
This isn’t just about the Catholic Church. I hope ALL Americans with any religious affiliation recognize this action on the part of the Obama Administration for what it is, an attack against the free exercise of religion.
It would be an immensely difficult thing for this country if the over 600 Catholic hospitals shut their doors. They serve millions of people (including a disproportionate number of low-income) and employ over a 100,000 people.
In a way, this whole debacle is the U.S. Church reaping what she has sowed by failing to teach the faith for so many years. I can’t see Catholics in large numbers standing with the Bishops on this. It’s a sad, sad day. Prayer and fasting are much needed.
How about that scary BLACK MAN??
Scuse me? African American men aren’t trying to take away women’s reproductive freedom. The United States Catholic Bishops spend lots of money (second only to AIPAC as in monies spent to lobby the government) to do just that.
I think it is sad that the only church that we apparently even think might stand up to this is the Catholic church. Where are all the others?
”I hope ALL Americans with any religious affiliation recognize this action on the part of the Obama Administration for what it is, an attack against the free exercise of religion.”
LOL, the pro-choice religions stand with the Obama administration as they, too, believe in women being able to access reproductive technology that now covers Viagra!
“Remember how Obama was ready to let the whole US go into default, if House Republicans refused to fund every cent to Planned Parenthood?”
Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with the debt ceiling debate. Remember, it was the Senate that squelched the defunding of Planned Parenthood the year before.
Where are all the others?
Actually, the evangelicals and certain Orthodox Jews allied with the bishops. Mainstream Protestants and Reformed/Conservative Jews don’t have a problem with this.
CC, it’s called A PLAY ON WORDS. I am talking about the one scary black man who is our president who thinks some babies are “mistakes.”
You are free to reproduce or not as much as you like. But the killing must stop.
“You are free to reproduce or not as much as you like. But the killing must stop”
Birth control isn’t “killing.” The reality based community gets that. And as far as “killing,” there’s a whole lot of folks who don’t have a problem with that. While you’ve managed to limit access to abortion, Roe still stands as “stare decisis” as noted by Catholics Roberts and Alito. Meanwhile, those who provide “sidewalk counseling” at the Planned Parenthoods, used by many in the reality based community, are viewed as the circus performers and women harassers that they are.
Oh, and Courtnay, American women value their reproductive freedom and won’t stand by while it’s being taken away by zealots like you. I suspect that many of these women are in your neighbor’s congregation. In fact, Episcopalian priests frequently do escort duty at clinics as do ministers from the Unitarian, UCC, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist churches. Meanwhile the men in Roman collars stand with the protesters. Not only is there a political divide on reproductive rights, there’s a religious one, too.
It would be a mistake for any religious organization to believe that this type of direct infringement on religious freedom won’t impact them in the future. Sure, they may not care about contraception and sterilization, but they should care about our government dictating that religious organizations defy their moral teaching.
Very well said Lrning, on both of your posts.
“seperation of church and state” (which doesn’t TECHNICALLY exist) was put in place to protect the CHURCH from the state.
So if the pro-aborts are going to say it all the time – they need to allow the churches to do what is right for them – to CHOOSE not to supply contraceptives if they do not want.
http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-012.cfm
CC, I love it when you call me a zealot!! I need a tshirt with that one too!
The ministers who are deathscorts will have to deal with their actions one day. But the one thing that keeps me–and the men in the Roman collars (which my neighbor wears, incidentally!)–going is the absolute 100% conviction that ending abortion–the killing of the innocent–is the right thing to do, legally, spiritually, secularly. And if you’re an minister, the idea that Jesus would EVER condone an abortion is absolutely unthinkable–for those who are truly interested in doing His will rather than conforming to modern moral relevance.
Women of your generation who bought the lie that liberty is bound up in a woman’s ability to kill her own child will die out, and once they do, the smarter, younger generation of women who have seen the pictures and considered them honestly will begin to demand something better for themselves, their children, and their country.
Jill, the Church will not cave because She cannot deny the truth of the moral law and right doctrine. The battle is definitely on, and Catholics have no choice but to engage in civil disobedience for the sake of fidelity to the truth. It’s time to see who really has the stomach for the fight that lies ahead. The line is clearly drawn: either be faithful to God or Caesar.
This decision doesn’t only impact religious organizations. It’s a direct attack on individual rights of conscience. ALL of us that have health insurance (and don’t work for an organization that fits the narrow exemption) will be forced to contribute to coverage of abortifacient drugs.
Small employers like my Catholic dentist, who has chosen employee benefits in line with her conscience, will have to offer health coverage for things that violate her conscience or become a less desirable employer by not offering health insurance at all. What a crappy choice. And a completely unnecessary one.
I sincerely hope that everyone will be contacting their U.S. Representative and Senators to protest this attack on individual conscience and free exercise of religion.
“to CHOOSE not to supply contraceptives if they do not want.”
Fine, but then they don’t get federal dollars anymore. The requirement to cover contraceptives (and other related reproductive health services) is for the benefit of women. That the Catholic church wants to hurt women just underscores what they’re all about.
“Women of your generation who bought the lie that liberty is bound up in a woman’s ability to kill her own child will die out.”
Hate to cut the buzz, but there is whole new generation of pro-choice women who are standing tall for reproductive choice. And if abortion and contraception are eliminated (and they won’t be) those pro-life gals, who have an unwanted pregnancy, will realize that ”you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone.” Many of the first Planned Parenthood patients were Catholic women who were burdened with too many children and girls who didn’t want to be burdened (and I’m talking birth control not even abortion). They got their contraceptives despite (and I remember the sermons which caused me to walk – literally – out of the Catholic church at the age of 12) the admonishments of mortal sin. If you think that a total “pro-life” world is viable, then you’re really, really naive.
”The battle is definitely on, and Catholics have no choice but to engage in civil disobedience for the sake of fidelity to the truth.”
First of all, Catholics do NOT possess “the truth” as “the truth” is defined differently among all religions. Second what fun stuff are you guys going to be doing as “civil disobedience?”
Does anyone have any figures on how much relgious hospitals get from the feds?
But it’s funny that pro-aborts think that abortion mills should get federal dollars – but Christian hospitals that help people should not if they choose not to kill babies.
“But it’s funny that pro-aborts think that abortion mills should get federal dollars – but Christian hospitals that help people should not if they choose not to kill babies.”
“Killing” “babies” is legal and not deemed an issue for a large part of our population. Planned Parenthood helps women by providing them with reproductive care. The Catholic bishops seek to deny women reproductive health care that is legal and that is discriminatory and hurtful to women.
Several months ago, I had a 6th grade student tell me that I did not belong in a public school but should be teaching in a private school. When I questioned him about why he thought this he replied because I have reprimanded him and others for saying “Jesus Christ” in anger.
When I mentioned to a colleague what this student had said to me, this lapsed Catholic science teacher said, “Well, I might think this, but I wouldn’t say it to your face.”
Some years back, we had guest speakers for teachers and staff to kick off the school year. One speaker was talking about his memories of the traditions of being raised as a Catholic child and he then asked on the order of, “Maybe some of you can relate. Are any of you Catholic here?”
The Catholics raised their hands and our CINO superintendent shouted out, “Some of us are but don’t like to admit it.” Laughter but not one word in defense of Catholics. (I added his comment to a complaint I made to the school board on other issues and needless to say this has not increased my popularity at work).
What would the uproar have been if the speaker had asked the audience if any of us were Jewish or Native American or African American or Muslim or even Christian and the superintendent made the exact comment?
I also wear a crucifix and have had several students ask me if this is allowed in a public school. They couldn’t explain to me why they thought it shouldn’t be other than “because of the separation of church and state.”
I have never talked to students about my being Catholic at the public school but do teach religious education to high school students on Wednesday evenings so some students and many adults are aware of this. However, I believe this anger and hatred of Catholics is fostered by the adults and being taught to the kids.
I also wonder with Bryan. It’s easy to see and state that many Catholics are not living their faith but where are all the other churches defending those Catholics who do live their faith out? After all, they will be next.
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.
Do you have a source for these claims that a large part of our population doesn’t deem it an issue? Last I checked a large majority were pro-life “in most cases.”
No one is denying anyone reproductive health – if someone needs to see an OB/GYN, I don’t think they’ll have an issue with that! Killing your baby though? That’s a different story.
”When I questioned him about why he thought this he replied because I have reprimanded him and others for saying “Jesus Christ” in anger.”
How did you frame your argument that he shouldn’t have said that? If you said that it’s offensive to you and other Christians it would have made a nice “teachable moment” about bullying. And when students comment about your cross, you should cite how the Constitution allows people to wear religious items. And the Constitution allows the superintendent to joke about being a closet Catholic. Perhaps you should take up your issue with him.
Praxdes –
I had a teacher in high school (public high school, she was also the adviser of the Bible Club), who if people would say the words “OMG” she would say “Is He? Is He your God? Because He’s mine – and I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t use His name in vain.”
I don’t think she or you did anything wrong.
If someone had said something against the Muslim religion there would have been an uproar!
If we are going to “coexist” and live in harmony yatta yatta yatta – then there has to be mutual respect.
If Catholic institutions don’t want the feds telling them what to do, they should stop taking federal dollars. The Bishops haven’t shown courage so far. Unless some new ones come in, no reason to think they will.
”Killing your baby though? That’s a different story.”
Again, the medical community and many non-Catholic faith communities do not see the types of birth control covered under this policy as abortions. “Science” is not on your side here. If a woman is pregnant, Plan B does not cause an abortion.
Ah for once CC says something we can agree with :)
Oh now your a scientist CC?
WOW! So many degrees!
Crack open a package of birth control and read the label.
People, this has nothing to do with who gets money from the Federal government. ALL health plans must cover contraceptives and sterilization free of charge. (Unless you meet the narrow religious exemption.)
My dentist doesn’t get money from the Fed. Govt. But she is going to have to provide a health plan that violates her INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE and FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION or not provide health coverage at all.
CC and Hiawatha are obviously not pro-CHOICE since the Obama Administration has taken CHOICE out of the decision of what type of health coverage can be offered to employees and they seem to be applauding this horrible decision.
If Catholic hospitals don’t mean religion exemptions – who does?
Some interesting comments in this article:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/hhs-secretary-sebelius-church-groups-must-provide-contraception/
Thomas Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, also challenged the position of the HHS secretary. “What we are seeing here is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to prohibit: state action targeted against the religious consciences of particular religious communities, and intended to attack their conceptions of justice, equality and the common good. It is tyranny, pure and simple. The stakes go beyond the questions of contraception and abortion to the very meaning of American democracy,” he added.
Richard Garnett, a leading constitutional scholar at the University of Notre Dame, characterized the HHS ruling as “cynical,” “regrettable” and “insulting to many faith-based organizations and institutions that supported the new health-care law.” “Combined with the extreme position the administration took before the Supreme Court in the recent Hosanna-Tabor case — a position that all nine justices rejected — this decision reveals the administration’s troubling inability to appreciate the importance of our ‘first freedom’ and a disappointing disregard for the religious consciences of individuals and for the integrity of religious institutions’ social-welfare and educational work,” said Garnett.
“How did you frame your argument that he shouldn’t have said that? If you said that it’s offensive to you and other Christians it would have made a nice “teachable moment” about bullying. “
Absolutely, I did. I explained this several times to the student in front of another adult who did not back me and his language continued. I went to the counselor who gave me a dumbfounded look and then went to the principal who agreed with me and talked with the student. This student is easily influenced and it is my belief that this student was being encouraged by an adult(s).
“And when students comment about your cross, you should cite how the Constitution allows people to wear religious items.”
I questioned what these 8th graders knew first. It seems the outspoken Democratic proabort Civics teacher is not doing a very good job teaching her subject. Maybe she should be let go?
“And the Constitution allows the superintendent to joke about being a closet Catholic. Perhaps you should take up your issue with him.”
This superintendent was well aware of a former complaint I had made about “jokes” made toward me about being Catholic by another adult so there was a history.
Would you be okay with a public school leader making the exact same comment about being Muslim or Jewish, (especially if this Jew or Muslim had made former complaints about “jokes” being made of their religion)? It is quite clear what your feelings are about the Catholic Church, Her leaders and Her members.
God bless you Praxedes. This is what more people need to do – speak up! It’s not easy to be the only one speaking up, but God bless you for being willing to be in that position.
Amber, I have heard many students and adults use “Jesus Christ” and I usually look around and say, “Where? Where? Oh you see him, too?” and this usually does the trick. With a few, I’ve had to explain that unless they are praying they should not use His name inappropriately and how this offends me.
The student I was talking about with CC, took it to the extreme, got louder and continued for days even after explanations and reprimands.
Thanks, Lrning. It’s so nice to hear someone who knows how hard speaking up can be and how it is often followed with nastier behaviors. At one point I went to my doctor and told him I was going to quit my job. He woke me up when he said, “How will you rationalize sending your kids to a school that you can’t handle working at?” There are many “good guys” out here and we need to keep encouraging each other.
I know Jill knows how the speaking out game goes too. Thank goodness she hung tough and has continued to do great works. It’s nice to come here and read the rational prolife comments.
Well, I see our resident troll CC is excited about an anti-church, and more specifically an anti-Catholic ruling. No surprise there. In case anyone is new to this blog CC hates the Catholic church and does not hesitate to let people know.
The government has no more right to do this than their trying to impose governance on the hiring and firing decisions of churches. Just last week in a stinging rebuke to Obama and Eric Holder the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the administration’s argument that the government has a say in making these determinations.
In this instance, not only are we transgressing matters of separation of church and state, but also the right of conscience. This is exhibit “A” of what is wrong with the sweeping powers granted to the government under Obamacare and perhaps will be introduced into the upcoming arguments before the court on the consitutionality of the Act.
Obama may have done us a favor in one respect. By announcing his decision at this time the court can see yet another intrusion of the Act into commonly held jurisprudence. The justices are not stupid. They will correctly recognize this latest travesty as overreaching and just the beginning of an endless stream of litigation should the Act be allowed to stand. Not wanting to do a piecemeal review ad infinitum of every last grievance arising from the Act perhaps this will give one more compelling reason why they should stike it down as wholly unconstitutional.
CC-That the Catholic church wants to hurt women just underscores what they’re all about.
What a load of manure. Once again you continue to discredit any position you have by making the most idiotic statements. Don’t you get tired of vomiting so much? What the heck are you doing here? It certainly cannot be to sway anyone to believe what you believe as you do a horrible job ever convincing anyone of anything with comments like that.
Jerry and Kris– cC hates everything. Except her sacrament of abortion.
from Bill Foley
CC is ignorant of science or is lying; a human being comes into existence at conception.
CC is also a domestic terrorist because CC supports the killing of American babies. CC is probably most pleased with the fact that such a large number of African-American babies are being murdered.
I realize this is going to be an unpopular post, given the number of Catholic regulars, but… Yes, I think Catholic groups are going to cave. I really don’t think they’ll hold out, as a group. Certainly, some individual organizations will, but en masse? No way. Depressing, I admit, but I just don’t see it happening.
Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have occasionally confronted such issues and have generally ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, contracts, fraud, negligence, crimes, discrimination, employment, and on and on) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and anyone could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate. Thus, the government can forbid discrimination against specified people and apply that law even to those who say their religion allows or requires them to discriminate. In rare (one hopes) circumstances, such a generally-applicable law could put an individual in an ethical Catch-22 if it requires one to take actions one considers immoral. For just this reason, when such binds can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.
Here, it may be questioned whether there is real need for such an exemption, since no one is being “forced,” as some commentators rage, to act contrary to their belief. Employers generally are not required by law to offer health-related benefits to their employees, although the practice of providing such benefits is common. IF an employer chooses to offer health benefits, though, federal anti-discrimination laws and health plan enforcement regulations act to protect an employee’s rights under those health plans. So, depending on whether an exemption to the law is allowed, either employers or employees are put to a choice. If religious employers are exempted from current discrimination and health benefit laws so they can offer health benefits omitting some medications and services, employees can choose whether to accept such benefits or seek employment elsewhere. If current discrimination and health benefit laws are enforced, religious employers can choose to offer health plans complying with those laws or not offer any health plans at all. To the extent that employers already have an option under the current laws consistent with their religious views, they have less need for an exemption from those laws.
I think that mandating a particular type of medication/medical procedure be covered under the law is bad practice in the first place. This makes me unpopular with other liberals, but I don’t see how it’s reasonable. My old insurance barely covered mental health services, only 20% for outpatient and inpatient. Did it suck? Heck yes, I could barely afford the medications. Do I think that a private company should be legally required to cover these things? No, I can think of other ways to reform healthcare than mandating certain types of coverage. Stop this weird practice of insurance being astronomically expensive unless your employer gives it to you, for example.
But, I really can’t see that Catholic hospitals and such will take a civil disobedience stand. Some of them might, but I think the majority will be too enamored of public funding to disobey the mandate.
Praxades, I can’t even stand it when people say “Oh my —-” and then take God’s name in vain. Usually I quip ‘But is He your God?” and they get the point.
I decided long ago I was not going to be silent while someone took the name of my Lord in vain. Unfortunately my extended family hurls God’s name through the air all the time. I want to be tactful but I just cannot keep silent anymore.
All the Catholic Charities in the Dioceses of Illinois left the government funding over adoption of children to homosexuals and unmarried people. In the Diocese of Belleville Catholic Charities renamed itself and parted ways with the Church.
Do not think the Church will go along with Obamacare. Sterilization, abortifacients and contraception are rooted in Lust for most people.
What is going to happen when the 40% of doctors retire as they say they will and Catholic hospitals don’t go along with this part of Obamacare?
Not enough doctors and hospitals along with free sterilization, abortifacients and contraception … sounds like rationing/population contol is on it’s way BIG TIME. Thanks Obama and friends. :o(
I think we may be surprised at the response from bishops and groups. They won’t be quiet about it. What forms civil disobedience will take, I don’t know. But expect litigation at the very least. When someone like Cardinal Mahoney blasts the president for this, you know Catholic leaders of all stripes are united. Demanding Catholics reject their consciences is particularly repulsive in Catholic culture. Wagons will circle. Catholic lawyers will be very busy.
God willing, this won’t even be an issue a year from now.
Oh, and I love how proaborts don’t complain when some govt money goes to church-run domestic violence shelters, programs for homeless persons, etc. Let them offer charty accordng to their own teachings. Govt can’t handle the numbers, and needs help at the local level. Let proaborts pick up charitable slack or shut up.
And that goes for our favorite out-going community organizer and his sizable income.
“But, I really can’t see that Catholic hospitals and such will take a civil disobedience stand. Some of them might, but I think the majority will be too enamored of public funding to disobey the mandate.” I feel the need to repeat myself. Public funding has nothing to do with this regulation. ALL health plans will need to provide for contraception and sterilization.
********************************************************************************
“Employers generally are not required by law to offer health-related benefits to their employees, “
Clearly you are not familiar with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: “Under the Affordable Care Act, beginning in 2014 employers with at least 50 full-time employees (or equivalent full- and part-time workers) will have to provide “qualified” health insurance coverage to their full-time employees and their dependents. Qualified coverage means that plans are comprehensive (pay at least 60 percent of health care expenses) and affordable (cost less than 9.5 percent of employees’ household incomes). If employers don’t offer qualified coverage, and if their employees purchase coverage instead through a new state insurance exchange with the assistance of federal subsidies, companies will have to make an “assessable payment” of up to $2,000 for every full-time employee beyond the first 30 employees. The amount of the assessment will be adjusted annually to reflect the growth in national insurance premium costs. Other Assessments: If employers do offer coverage, but the coverage does not meet certain parameters, they may still have to pay assessments. First, employers will be assessed if a plan is judged not to be comprehensive. This means the coverage must have an “actuarial value” of at least 60 percent. In other words, the employer pays on average at least 60 percent of health care expenses and the employee pays on average 40 percent of these expenses through deductibles and copayments. Second, employers will be assessed if the employees’ premiums are considered unaffordable relative to their household incomes. Specifically, the employee’s share of the premium must not exceed 9.5 percent of his or her annual household income. Starting in 2014, if either of these two conditions is not met, the employer must pay a $3,000 annual assessment for each employee who declines his or her employment-based insurance and obtains government-subsidized coverage through an exchange.” http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=42
I don’t know what happened to that post above, but for readability sake I’m going to repost.
“But, I really can’t see that Catholic hospitals and such will take a civil disobedience stand. Some of them might, but I think the majority will be too enamored of public funding to disobey the mandate.”
I feel the need to repeat myself. Public funding has nothing to do with this regulation. ALL health plans will need to provide for contraception and sterilization.
“Employers generally are not required by law to offer health-related benefits to their employees, “
Clearly you are not familiar with Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:
“Under the Affordable Care Act, beginning in 2014 employers with at least 50 full-time employees (or equivalent full- and part-time workers) will have to provide “qualified” health insurance coverage to their full-time employees and their dependents. Qualified coverage means that plans are comprehensive (pay at least 60 percent of health care expenses) and affordable (cost less than 9.5 percent of employees’ household incomes). If employers don’t offer qualified coverage, and if their employees purchase coverage instead through a new state insurance exchange with the assistance of federal subsidies, companies will have to make an “assessable payment” of up to $2,000 for every full-time employee beyond the first 30 employees. The amount of the assessment will be adjusted annually to reflect the growth in national insurance premium costs.
Other Assessments: If employers do offer coverage, but the coverage does not meet certain parameters, they may still have to pay assessments. First, employers will be assessed if a plan is judged not to be comprehensive. This means the coverage must have an “actuarial value” of at least 60 percent. In other words, the employer pays on average at least 60 percent of health care expenses and the employee pays on average 40 percent of these expenses through deductibles and copayments. Second, employers will be assessed if the employees’ premiums are considered unaffordable relative to their household incomes. Specifically, the employee’s share of the premium must not exceed 9.5 percent of his or her annual household income. Starting in 2014, if either of these two conditions is not met, the employer must pay a $3,000 annual assessment for each employee who declines his or her employment-based insurance and obtains government-subsidized coverage through an exchange.”
http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=42
Personally, I don’t think that insurance should be offered through employment. I think it harms more than it helps and is bad practice. A non-Catholic working for a Catholic employer shouldn’t have her healthcare needs decided by the employer’s religious beliefs. There really needs to be a better way to insure people.
That being said, I do wonder if you guys would think it was okay for Jehovah’s Witness employers to deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions or organ transplants? Or a Christian Science employer denying healthcare benefits for all? I mean, I agree with responsible conscience clauses, but how far do they go?
I do wonder if you guys would think it was okay for Jehovah’s Witness employers to deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions or organ transplants? Or a Christian Science employer denying healthcare benefits for all?
I’m okay with this. As long as the information is presented up front when a job candidate is making the employment decision and not sprung on them when they’re in a medical emergency.
Yeah I gotta agree with Lrning, because at least in my state you don’t HAVE to buy from your employer so if you do your research and don’t like what they supply, then you can just buy private – might be more expensive, but gotta do what you gotta do.
Under the Affordable Care Act, beginning in 2014 employers with at least 50 full-time employees (or equivalent full- and part-time workers) will have to provide “qualified” health insurance coverage to their full-time employees and their dependents… If employers don’t offer qualified coverage, and if their employees purchase coverage instead through a new state insurance exchange with the assistance of federal subsidies, companies will have to make an “assessable payment” of up to $2,000 for every full-time employee beyond the first 30 employees. The amount of the assessment will be adjusted annually to reflect the growth in national insurance premium costs.
In other words, a small employer like your dentist can continue to offer the plan that she wants, and Catholic hospitals can opt out without committing “civil disobedience,” quite possibly saving themselves money while they’re at it.
Lrning and LisaC,
Yes, it appears that under current law as well as the law to become effective in 2014, employers may choose not to provide health plans they deem objectionable. No one, thus, is forced by these laws to take actions contrary to his or her religious beliefs.
The first Eurpoeans who landed on American soil braved the hazardous journey to escape religious persecution. This is something every American child learns in grade school, but what do they think this means? It had very little to do with going to church and everything to do with defending deeply held moral convictions. The “religious freedom” guaranteed by our Constitution is there to protect people of faith from government coercion. Catholics and others have a right to believe that abortion and contraception violate God’s law, and they have a right to be protected from government interference in this matter, even if you disagree with this belief. Any other position on this matter supports dictatorial, coercive government intrusion.
The Catholic Church has always been at odds with popular culture, and historically the Church thrives during times of persecution. I am confident the Bishops will answer the call. And if this issue unites liberal and conserviste Catholics, as a previous commentator proposed, I say PRAISE THE LORD, it is about time!
I’m not optimistic.
Several months ago when the Church was waging the homily campaign urging parishioners to contact their local congressman/woman in opposition to this same issue (not forcing contraceptive purchases), my first thought was, “You gotta be kidding!”
The average uninformed catholic would have looked at that announcement and thought: “Birth control? What’s the big deal?”
The vast majority of catholic dioceses do not require pre-marriage classes on Natural Family Planning, so it goes without saying that the vast majority of catholics have no clue that birth control is even immoral and that NFP exists.
Now maybe the bishops will surprise me and go full holy metal jacket on Sebelius and Obama, but given the failure of the American Catholic Church on the birth control front, I shan’t hold my breath.
Doug and LisaC,
ALL health plans must include contraception and sterilization. If my dentist wishes to continue to offer health coverage for her employees, she will be forced to purchase coverage that includes them. Because she is smaller than 50 employees, she can choose NOT TO OFFER HEALTH CARE if she wishes. Which puts her business at a competitive disadvantage.
Lrning,
What is your point? Initially, the perceived problem, as some said, was that religious employers were being forced to take actions contrary to their consciences. It turns out that is not true. Under both current law and law to take effect in 2014, they may act consistent with their consciences simply by not offering health plans to their employees. Now, the problem is, you say, that making that choice would put them at a competitive disadvantage? That’s hardly a matter of conscience. It is, in any event, also easy to solve–with money. Since the employers would save the cost of providing health plans, they could readily just pay their employees more and thereby enable their employees to purchase their own health plans.
Obama will be taxing religious groups for the privilege of practicing their religion. This is DHIMMITUDE with respect to the statist religion
YEP. I’m using Islamic terms to describe the new relationship of pro-life religions to the state: that they have to pay a fine in order to continue practicing according to their beliefs. I am wondering what will happen when the Muslim doctors decide that they have a problem with the coercive policies of the Obama administration, as have the Muslim health caregivers in Europe.
The reason that Europe is allowing some religious dissent to the abortion culture, is not because of the Christians. They already gave in. It’s mostly the Muslims who rolled the abortion coercion back a bit, by refusing to cooperate. The governments have sufficient fear of the Muslims that they’re afraid to deny them the freedom to not abort.
Sorry to say, there is a significant drawback to turning the other cheek.
So far, it appears that the Bishops are going to do what they did in Canada… let the government have its way, with minimal resistance.
CC says: “killing” “babies” is legal. Wow, CC. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral.
CC needs some serious prayers.
The Catholic priests have only themselves to blame. They scream and yell about abotion, gay marraige and then vote for every Democrat they meet. This election is a choice for them-Christ or Marx-I bet they choose Marx.
Jack: I do wonder if you guys would think it was okay for Jehovah’s Witness employers to deny their employees coverage for blood transfusions or organ transplants? Or a Christian Science employer denying healthcare benefits for all? I mean, I agree with responsible conscience clauses, but how far do they go?
Good point, Jack.
Lrning, What is your point? Initially, the perceived problem, as some said, was that religious employers were being forced to take actions contrary to their consciences. It turns out that is not true. Under both current law and law to take effect in 2014, they may act consistent with their consciences simply by not offering health plans to their employees.
Doug, did you read the regulations? An organization over 50 employees can’t simply not offer health plans to their employees. They will have to pay fines for that “choice”. And you’re saying it’s a good thing that a small employer (under 50 employees) that now offers health care to their employees may be forced to remove that benefit in order to be consistent with their conscience? Isn’t the point of this law to INCREASE the number of people that are covered under health plans? How is making it MORE difficult for companies and organizations to offer health care a GOOD thing?
It’s not a good thing. And the whole reason we’re in this ridiculous position is because of the lack of respect for CHOICE and CONSCIENCE of the pro-abortion advocates and the hypocritical Obama Administration. Improving access to health care was apparently never the goal. Increasing use of contraceptives and sterilization, (population control?) appears to have been the real goal. Along with increasing abortions, no doubt.
Lrning,
While I have not read the regulations, I did read the statute you quoted. I understand that employers will have three general choices: (1) provide qualifying health plans or (2) provide less-than-comprehensive health plans and pay assessments to make up the difference or (3) pay assessments. The assessments will be used to make health plans available to all.
No employer, thus, is “forced” to act contrary to his conscience. That much is established.
With that problem solved and employers thus able to act consistent with both the law and their consciences, you object to an employer having to pay assessments for choosing not to provide qualifying health plans. Would you have them short their employees and do nothing further? That would put them at the competitive disadvantage that concerned you earlier and run counter to the law’s purpose, which you champion in your last comment, of increasing the number of people covered by health plans. Payment of the assessments would serve to level the playing field for all employers and serve to make health plans more available to all.
Contrary to your assertions about a lack of respect for choice and conscience, the law accomplishes all of this while providing religious employers with choices consistent with their consciences. Win-win. Religious employers, thus, have no need for an “exemption”–unless their real aim is not just to avoid acting contrary to their consciences, but rather to openly and specifically target some for discrimination that the law otherwise prohibits.
Oh, I see. You think it’s FREE exercise of religion, we just have to pay for it. Gotcha.
thanks all you “catholics” who voted for Obama…now that the country and the church are being destroyed from within and without…please…go learn your faith now…and realize that no Catholic can support Obama/Democratic Party/Liberalism/Leftism/Socialism – you get the idea – oh, and don’t forget to go to confession
“The Catholic priests have only themselves to blame. They scream and yell about abotion, gay marraige and then vote for every Democrat they meet. This election is a choice for them-Christ or Marx-I bet they choose Marx.”
Susan D, I’ve never heard a priest scream and yell about abortion or gay marriage. I’ve also never heard a priest talk about who he votes for. Where can I get a copy of the list of who priests have voted for?
Oh, and Courtnay, American women value their reproductive freedom and won’t stand by while it’s being taken away by zealots like you.
They just don’t value it enough to pay for it themselves, LOL.
Lrning,
That cute play on words gets you off track. As noted in my first comment, free exercise of religion does not mean people are free to break every and any law they deem contrary to their religious beliefs. Laws, of course, commonly impose burdens and costs. That this law also does so does not change the fact that under this law religious employers remain free to act consistent with their religious beliefs.
As people come to realize this law does not force them to act contrary to their consciences, yet persist into working themselves into a lather for an exemption from the law’s anti-discrimination provisions, their real intentions are laid bare.
Doug Indeap said: While I have not read the regulations, I did read the statute you quoted. I understand that employers will have three general choices: (1) provide qualifying health plans or (2) provide less-than-comprehensive health plans and pay assessments to make up the difference or (3) pay assessments. The assessments will be used to make health plans available to all.
So, in other words, (1) violate your conscience, (2) offer healthcare that does not violate your conscience and pay a fine for it, or (3) not offer healthcare at all, not violate your conscience, and pay a fine that will be specifically used to support something you completely disagree with.
Let’s take this out of healthcare for a minute. Imagine a law was passed saying that you MUST provide positive information about Naziism* to all employers. Now,according to the law, your only options are (1) provide the information, even though you disagree with it, (2) provide partial information and pay an “assessment” that allows your employers to get the rest of the information, or (3) not provide the information at all, and pay even more so that your employers can get all of the information. To most Catholic institutions, this is the quandary they find themselves in. And again, those options only apply if you have fifty or fewer employees. If you have more than fifty, like say the couple of thousand of Catholic Hospitals in this country, you are legally required to offer health insurance, no ifs, ands, or buts. The only way those hospitals can NOT provide Health insurance that includes contraception, et al, would be to GO OUT OF BUSINESS, completely. And that would help with healthcare, how?
* I really do not mean to invoke Godwin’s Law, it is just the first thing that popped to mind that most people would violently disagree with.
The Catholic Church will challenge this and win due to the clear and detailed explanation o this topic as it relates to “properly” living our Catholic faith.
“2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72″
Lecaia,
I understand the aim of your hypothetical. The point of this inquiry, though, is not to revisit the merits of the law or, even less, to undo the law in some measure. Rather the only inquiry is whether conscientious objectors have a choice that does not compel them to take actions contrary to their consciences. This law allows them to avoid providing health plans contrary to their religious views. It requires only that they pay the government an assessment in lieu of the premium costs that employers providing health plans pay, so the government itself may do what the religious employers would not, and make health plans available. The point of the inquiry is not to allow religious employers to somehow stand in the way of or otherwise reduce implementation of the law.
As I understand it, employers with more than 50 employees have at least those choices.
It depends on how you define Catholic!
True Catholics will not surrender. Our Traditional priest today talked about this in the Homily.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
This in keeping with Obama’s real religion, Islam. It sounds very much like the Islamic “Taqiya”.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, inc.
DougI,
Paying an ‘assesment’ to fund abortion coverage elsewhere will be objected to and fought against also becue it would also be a violation of conscience and prohibited by our catholic faith.
DougI,
You left out the other option. Government exception to the mandate. It is already hugely popular and most of the Obamacare regs haven’t even kicked in yet. It could also be challenged on an individual basis (do I hear class action lawsuit) by catholics or as part of a class-action.
Unfortunately, for too long, the voice of the bishop’s conference has been sublimated by concerns for Democrat politics. I can understand the concern of bishops for the poor and homeless. I can relate to their goal of treating everyone, including immigrants, with charity. However, protecting the lives of the innocent within our society must always be above all other concerns. i.e a first priority for all Catholics including the clergy. Yes, we must fight this loudly and legally but also, the politicians who are supporting abortion and claiming to be faithful Catholic should be publicly exposed and chastized by their individual bishops.
CC, I must respond to your callous opinion about babies concieved by rape. My sister was date raped and when she found out she was pregnant all her so called friends urged her to have an abortion. Her response was “it’s not the babys fault he was concieved that way.” To make a long story short all of her so called friends abandoned her. She made new friends and raised him herself. Today he’s a graduate from a major state university with a degree in computer engineering and now is going for his masters degree from the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University. The frightening thing is its sounds from your words if this was your situation he’d be buried under 100 feet of garbage in a landfill!
truthseeker,
Oh come on. The government need only go so far in accommodating those who seek to be excused from complying with a law for religious reasons. Here, I gather, some have religious objections to abortion and contraception. Okay. The law does not compel them to have abortions or use contraception, so in that critical respect the law does not force them to act contrary to their beliefs. The law does not even compel employers to provide health plans that provide such medical services to any of their employees who wish those services, so in that respect the law does not force them to act contrary to their beliefs. Now, I hear you object that those with religious objections to abortion or contraception don’t like that they are required to pay assessments to the government because they don’t like the idea that the government may, using money in its coffers, itself make health plans providing those medical services available to those wanting them. Excuse me, but there are limits to how far the government should go to accommodate conscientious objectors. The conscientious objectors do not have a religious objection to paying money, and that is all they are being required to do. Everyone pays money to the government in many ways, e.g., various taxes, assessments, etc., and, of course, the government uses that money to implement the laws. That is how the government works. Conscientious objectors may rightly ask not to be compelled themselves to act contrary to their beliefs, but they have no call to demand that they be allowed to control whether and how the government spends its money.
” The law does not even compel employers to provide health plans that provide such medical services to any of their employees who wish those services, so in that respect the law does not force them to act contrary to their beliefs. “
For the love of God, please read the regulations! The law requires that all health plans cover contraception and sterilization without co-pays. Certain religious employers are exempted from this requirement. The religious exemption is not broad enough. Religious organizations that serve or employ people of other religions or exist for a purpose other than instilling religious values are not exempted.
The fact that the sanctions for not obeying the law are fines and not jail time doesn’t mean this law doesn’t trample freedom of religion and individual conscience rights.
http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/
DougI,
You obviously are not knowledgeable in the Catholic faith. Any catholic institution participating in the distribution of abotificients constitutes a grave offense. Here is a little more from our deposit of faith
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
Lrning,
I have read the law as quoted in comments above–and it plainly affords conscientious objectors the choice of not offering health plans and instead simply paying an assessment (not a “fine”) of money to the government.
truthseeker,
I understand that some may have religious objections to “participating in the distribution of abortificients.” This law does not compel anyone to do that. In the end, conscientious objectors may simply pay the government money INSTEAD OF doing the things they deem objectionable.
If you then say that the objector also objects even simply to paying money to the government, then I say that’s tough. All of us pay money to the government, and I dare say all of us can point to one or more things the government does that we deem objectionable, even immoral. If people were excused from paying money to the government as conscientious objectors, the government simply could not operate. There is a practical limit to how far the government can go to accommodate those claiming objections on grounds of conscience.
It seems that several of the responders to this question such as Doug Indeap above would probably support Islamic “Taquiya” that is the taxing of those who don’t agree with the “prophet” Muhammed’s “religion” and insist on practicing their faith, whatever else it may be. No wonder our Nation is in such dire peril!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Doug, you have a reading comprehension problem. The law & associated regulations MANDATE that health plans cover contraception and sterilization. The law & associated regulations are EXPLICIT in this MANDATE. There is simply no way to read this law as anything other than a forced MANDATE since it is EXPLICIT in requiring contraception and sterilization. (Other than the narrow exemption for churches.) Do you understand that those required to pay assessments are in violation of the law?
You are apparently of the opinion that the sanctions levied on those not complying with the law are not onerous. That is only your opinion. Those sanctions could change. Perhaps if the assessment was $10,000 per employee you would feel differently? Perhaps if it was 1 year jail time? The point is the law clearly MANDATES coverage for items that VIOLATE the freedom of religious expression and conscience rights of some religious organizations and individuals. And those that object are NOT EXEMPTED from the law. For larger organizations, (like hospitals, universities, and social service organizations that serve the common good) their choices are to violate their conscience OR violate the law. You are apparently okay with this, probably because the law is not VIOLATING your personal religious expression and conscience rights. However, Americans that understand what free expression of religion means and the importance of conscience rights will not be okay with this.
Many, many (too many) Catholics voted for the intrustive government we have that wants to run everyone and everything in their own image (i.e. Democrats). The only way to undo the damage that has been done by the social engineering of Obama Care is for Catholics to STOP voting for pro abortion, pro contraception, anti Catholic leaders.
Yet to some extent Catholic institutions have brought this upon themselves by promoting and supporting anti-Catholic values…sterilizations performed by Catholic hospitals, honorary degrees bestowed on pro abortion politicans (Barack Obama) by Notre Dame, it is disgraceful.
Why do so many Catholics believe that the Democrats are the party of compassion? There is no truth to that assumption. Social services are much more efficiently run by private charitable institutions, not big government. The Democrats have delcared war on these institutions, which undermines true charity and compassion.
Lrning,
Now you are changing the subject. Yes, the law mandates that health plans qualify with the law’s requirements. That is not the issue at hand. The question is whether the law forces employers with conscientious objections to parts of such plans to nonetheless provide them to their employees. IT DOES NOT DO THAT. They may choose instead not to provide any health plans and, instead, simply pay assessments to the government. Whew! End of the objectors’ moral quandary.
But, you say, those who make that choice actually are “in violation of the law.” I have only read what you have offered here and that does not support your assertion. It merely says that employers who do not provide qualifying health plans must pay assessments.
It appears to me that you are reading burdens into this law that just aren’t there in order to justify the outrage you seem committed to feeling.
Not changing the subject. Emphasizing the issue for someone that appears to have reading comprehension problems.
http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/
Yes, the law demands that all employers that are not exempted offer qualified plans to their employees. If they do not, they are in violation of the law. If you have a link to something in the law or regulations that says something different, please post it.
Lrning, I don’t think DougI is gonna be able to respond affirmatively to your last post.
Lrning,
Again, the link you provide simply does not support your assertion. It says nothing whatever about employers that do not offer plans, and that pay the requisite assessments, being in “violation” of the law.
Take your own reading comprehension advice to heart. And as you are the one asserting that the law “forces” employers to act contrary to their religious beliefs, you are the one who needs to do the research and show plainly that the law does what you assert. So far, what you have provided demonstrates exactly the opposite.
“It says nothing whatever about employers that do not offer plans,”
This link:
http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/
clearly shows the coverage requirements and who is exempted from meeting them. If an employer or insurer is not in the exempted group, they are MANDATED to provide the required coverage. Seriously, this isn’t rocket science.
I have done the research. You haven’t. Perhaps you should look up some legal opinions on the law and associated regulations. Here’s one to get you started:
http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-to-hhs-on-preventive-services-2011-08-2.pdf
I found this article interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html
“Were Notre Dame to drop coverage for its 5,229 employees, the HHS penalty alone would amount to $10 million each year.”
Pay $10 million for free exercise of religion? Bah, that’s ain’t no big thing, right Doug?
Here’s the solution…the mandate exempts religious institutions that serve primarily members of their faith. So when someone comes to a Catholic hospital, university, social service provider or other Catholic institution, they can be given a form to sign that says “This institution operates under the authority of the Bishop of _________. I hereby acknowledge the authority of the Bishop in accepting services offered by this institution” …so then they become instantly Catholic and since now the institution only serves fellow Catholics, they are EXEMPT from the mandate….hey, I think it will WORK!
Catholic Charities has 70,000 employees. That means the HHS penalty would be almost $140,000,000 per year. Pfft. Small price to pay to exercise the faith in good conscience, I guess.
Well Barbara, one of the other requirements is that the organization “ has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose”. So while a patient is receiving a procedure, or a student is learning mathematics, or a homeless person is receiving a meal, etc etc, they also must be instructed in the faith! Perfect!
Can you just imagine?
Yes, it would be great if those who receive services were also instructed in the faith..in fact it used to be that way before the disease of political correctness infected church institutions. My son attends Catholic school and ALL the students are given religious instruction, even those who are not Catholic, it is part of the program. Let’s call the Bishops and get them on it RIGHT NOW!
a
Lrning,
Thank you for the link. I read it, and guess what? It confirms what I’ve been saying. While the author asserts in places that the law “forces” religious employers to provide qualifying health plans they deem objectionable, he reveals that to be but hyperbole by elsewhere confirming that such employers may instead just decline to provide any health plans. Without specifically describing the law’s provision for payment of assessments, the author tacitly acknowledges them when he objects to conscientious objectors having to pay the government; that, he says, smacks of endorsing the government’s law.
So, we’re right where I said we were. The law does not compel anyone to undergo or provide any medical service to which they object. It does not even compel them to provide health plans that allow their employees to have others provide them such services. In the end, employers with objections may decline to provide any health plans to their employees and simply pay assessments to the government instead.
While some may not like the prospect that others may mistakenly perceive such payments as endorsement of the law (notwithstanding that the employers can plainly tell everyone otherwise), such discomfort is merely that. That is entirely different than being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs. In this law, the government succeeds in affording conscientious objectors a choice that does not compel them to take actions they deem immoral. The government need not go further. It need not endeavor to assure that they also experience no discomfort over possible misperceptions about their views of the law if they simply pay the assessments the law requires.
With respect to the amount of the assessment, if my arithmetic is correct, if Notre Dame dropped health plans for its employees, it would be assessed little more than $1,900 per employee per year. That undoubtedly is far less than Notre Dame pays on average for each employee’s health plan, so the net result is that it would save a bundle. And you thought it was being “penalized.” Perhaps HHS needs to rethink the amount of these assessments; they seem way low.
The fines will pay for health care for the uninsured. In the end we all end up enrolled in and paying for govt healthcare including abortions, contraception and sterilization… Evil empire …
Is that any different than someone paying taxes even though objecting to this or that action of the government? I dare say that nearly every taxpayer can point to one or more things the government does that the taxpayer regards as wrong or even immoral. If that alone sufficed to justify each taxpayer in withholding payment of what is owed to the government, then how would any government ever operate?
“It confirms what I’ve been saying.”
Oy vey. How can you think that after reading a 35 page document on how this law violates the Constitution and numerous legal precedents?
Don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion Doug.
Lrning,
As a lawyer, I make a living recognizing weakness in an argument when I see it. Having seen what the church’s lawyers wrote, I recognized (quite readily) that the weaknesses I have pointed out were acknowledged (expressly in some respects, tacitly in others) but NOT rebutted (other than in the one, rather lame, way I addressed above). The lawyers did a fine job waving their arms to call attention elsewhere (to some of the various arguments to which you allude; they’re losers) and otherwise glossing over these weaknesses, but ultimately they offered little on point. My reaction was to think, “is that all you got”? Presuming that it is, I gained more confidence in my analysis of the issue than if I had devoted days researching it from scratch.
My expression of gratitude to you for providing that link was genuine.