Breaking: 50 Members of Congress to hold press conference today on legislation to protect religious freedom
The press thinks, and Democrats hope, the controversy surrounding President Obama’s contraception mandate issue has dissipated.
It hasn’t.
I wrote yesterday a vote is anticipated any time now in the Senate on Senator Roy Blunt’s measure, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.
Meanwhile, Congressman Jeff Fortenberry has introduced similar legislation in the House.
Both bills have the bipartisan support of 220 Members of Congress and Senators.
Today Congressman Fortenberry and 49 House and Senate colleagues will hold a news conference at 1p EST to promote the legislation, “which would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services.”
Here is the list of Members who plan to attend the press conference:
Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, author of HR 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act
Congresswoman Sandy Adams
Congressman Robert Aderholt, Chairman of Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security
Congressman Todd Akin, Chairman of Armed Services Subcommittee on Sea Power Projection
Congressman Steve Austria, House Appropriations Committee
Congressman Spencer Bachus, Chairman of House Financial Services Committee
Congressman Lou Barletta
Congressman Rick Berg
Congresswoman Diane Black, House Ways and Means Committee liaison to House Budget Committee
Congressman Charles Boustany, Chairman of House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight
Congressman Kevin Brady, top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, senior member of the House Ways & Means Committee
Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle, Vice-Chairman of Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Spending
Congressman Dan Burton, senior member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Congressman Francisco ‘Quico’ Canseco
Congressman Steve Chabot, Chairman of House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
Congressman Sean Duffy
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, Chairman of House Subcommittee on Higher Education, member House Committees on Rules
Congressman Phil Gingrey, Chairman of GOP Doctors’ Caucus, Chairman of Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight
Congressman Louie Gohmert, Vice-Chair of Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Vice-Chairman of House Agriculture Committee
Congressman Gregg Harper, Chairman of Fragile X Caucus, Chairman of House Administration Subcommittee on Elections
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler
Congressman Tim Huelskamp
Congressman Bill Huizenga
Congressman Randy Hultgren
Congressman Walter Jones
Congressman Jack Kingston, Chairman of Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development and Food and Drug Administration
Congressman Raul Labrador, Vice-Chairman of Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations
Congressman Doug Lamborn, Chairman of House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Congressman Jeff Landry
Congressman Bob Latta
Congressman Donald Manzullo, Chairman of House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
Congressman Mick Mulvaney, Chairman of Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce
Congressman Patrick McHenry, Chairman of Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs
Congressman Jeff Miller, Chairman of House Committee on Veterans Affairs
Congressman Alan Nunnelee
Congressman Pete Roskam, Chief Deputy Whip for Republican House Caucus
Congressman David Schweikert
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Vice-Chairman of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Congressman Steve Scalise, author of House letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on the mandate
Congressman Bobby Schilling
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, Chairwoman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition and Horticulture
Congressman Tim Scott, Deputy Whip, Elected Leadership Committee
Congressman Chris Smith, Co-Chairman of Pro-Life Caucus, Chairman of House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
Congressman Steve Southerland
Congressman Marlin Stutzman, Deputy Whip for Republican House Caucus
Congressman Lee Terry, Vice-Chairman on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
Congressman Glenn Thompson, Chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, & Forestry
Congressman Robert Turner
Senator David Vitter
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.
The problem is that this is bigger than a religious liberty issue — which is big enough, granted. It’s about the government forcing citizens to purchase things FOR OTHER CITIZENS. Not just via taxes, like they make us buy Doritos and soda for food stamp clients. Through our insurance companies.
It’s sad that they even have to make this law. This law was already spelled out in the First Amendment by our Founding Fathers. They need to begin Impeachment proceedings. This president has not upheld the Consititution as he swore to do.
Let’s pray for these courageous men and women!
I just called my representative to let him about this press conference since he’s one of the co-sponsors of H.R. 1179, but he’s not in the list of attedees.
You can do the same, in case you don’t see your rep’s name in the list!
I plan to call Congressman Joe Courtney, a Catholic (when he campaigns here in CT at least) and ask him why he’s not on this list of supporters of religious freedom!
I agree with Christina – the religious freedom aspect is only one piece of the problem. Any solution which fails to address that is only covering it up and side-tracking things.
The core is the attempted rape of the American people via a control issue on mandatory insurance found in Obamacare.
The analogy I made to attempted rape is very strong. The fact that they tried to do this at all is morally wrong – and like attempted rape, their saying no they didn’t do this, or people can disagree is in itself wrong. Like an attempted rapist claiming he did nothing wrong.
If Congress is not removing the mandated control crap within Obamacare, then it’s merely trying to justify the attempt.
Leticia Velasquez says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:43 am
I plan to call Congressman Joe Courtney, a Catholic (when he campaigns here in CT at least) and ask him why he’s not on this list of supporters of religious freedom!”
Leticia don’t wait. You can call Joe Courtney now and tell hime to co-sponsor H.R. 1179 the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act.
You can find the contact info on his website
http://courtney.house.gov/
I’m glad the president has the support of most Americans on this issue.
61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage. The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration’s rule, while 32 percent oppose it.
Majorities of both men and women said they are in favor of the rule, though support among women is especially pronounced, with 66 percent supporting and 26 percent opposing it. Among men, 55 percent of men are in favor; 38 percent object.
It’s insane. First he runs roughshod over the first amendment. Then he presumes to tell businesses that they have to provide something “free.”
With Jarrett pulling this lame puppet’s strings, the bumbling entertainment combined with a sense of precarious peril for the Republic is a heckuva roller coaster ride.
Religious folk may care about this for religious reasons. I think more people still care about it for civic reasons.
Then there are those who support the president because he’s their man and dissent — even in support of the country’s founding principles and the rule of law, which subordinates leadership to a Constitution — is unthinkable.
Sheeple.
Obama is forcing a clear violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why is the Obama administration doing this? Follow the money.
Don’t be fooled–Abortion is big business, and millions of dollars in profit is Obama’s goal. Also, even more money, which the abortion promoters have dumped into the re-election campaign. Big Business Abortion promotes Obama’s agenda for only one reason–Obama’ administration helps their bottom line–money. Big abortion doesn’t care about “women’s health” or unborn women (tiny children with a beating heart)–they only want more money. If they have to raise their standard of care or pay their own way (instead of forcing other people to pay for abortion), they make less money off of the poor minorities and immigrant population in this country. See http://www.abortionracism.com. Abortion is a racist, bloody business, and people should not be forced to pay for it, even indirectly, through Obama’s schemes. Yes, this is about freedom–freedom to live, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and yes, also the separation of powers. The Obama Administration is making a huge power grab, contrary to our basic protections in the Constitution.
This issue isn’t really “just” about abortion, although yes, we “are endowed by Our Creator.”It is about an Administration that doesn’t respect the basic human rights in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Vote this Administration out, and all their lackeys, while we still have the right to think and speak, according to our
conscience!
Hal, it’s all about the way the question is asked.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/15/cbs-promotes-biased-poll-on-obama-anti-conscience-mandate/
No Catholic is being forced to actually use birth control. I assume the Catholic church has no objection to non-Catholics using birth control.
Hal~
Where are you getting your stats from?
Hal–your post is a “red herring” to divert attention from the real issue. We live in a Constitutional Republic, so how many Catholics (or whatever studies or statistics you dream up) approve of this is irrelevant. See my previous post. Thank you for staying on topic.
as far as polling – who cares? really, WHO CARES??!! the issue absolutely is not whether or not people agree with churches being forced or not – that has absolutely nothing to do with it!
to illustrate, I am going to do a hypothetical poll – “do you like it when Nazis march in the most highly Jewish neighborhood in the country?” or how about “do you agree with the KKK when they march in Birmingham on MLK day?” or even “do you support Westboro Baptist when they demonstrate at military funerals with signs that say ‘God hates fags?” – NONE of us like any of those examples – NONE of us agree with what they are doing – heck, I bet even joan and apostate dislike those examples – but IT DOES NOT MATTER – despite how much those activities disgust us, we also understand we MUST allow them to do that, or we compromise the basic freedoms upon which our country was founded and upon which our liberty depends
polls about whether or not people agree are a distraction – one we can not afford – and Hal, I am sure you know that – your comment is just meant to distract – and if it is not just that, and you truly do not understand this issue for what it is, then you seriously need to wake up, brother
So what are the chances this passes? Good, bad or what?
Hal – this is about power being usurped by the executive branch of government – without checks or balances. The office of HHS is being made so big, so powerful and it encompasses far too much.
Yes – the side issue is contraception – but it’s about forcing religious entities to back off the public square. It’s about the government making people so dependent on it = for everything. It’s about the executive branch forcing action across all 50 states without checks and balances.
Our founding fathers did not set up our government this way, this is becoming a totalitarian state – and if we don;t stop this now, YOU may be forced to do something, support something you object to, at the whim of the State. If we don’t hold the line here, religious liberty is dead.
You may make this about a popularity contest about birth control – but this is what our fore-fathers came to America for: religious liberty. This is what they died for – being able to practice their religion as they wished. This is about representation by the government FOR and by the people.
What cause are you willing to die for? and if the government now decided that it was not in line with what they wanted, what then?
This is big. This is a turning point in our nation – and people on both sides of the political isle – religious or not – recognize that if this stands, America will never be the same.
Hal,
Does your devotion to Obama so blind you to what he is and what he is doing? Our sociopath in chief is violating the First Amendment. Statistics, polls, etc. don’t mean squat. Do I think Jewish men should wear yamulkes? NOT THE ISSUE! Do I think people shouldn’t dance around campfires singing to the earth dieties? NOT THE ISSUE!
I’m sure the majority of Americans support the use of electricity. Does that justify Obama decreeing that Amish elders must provide their communities and businesses with electricity?
Hey, maybe some of the Amish women would love to have electricity and appliances. I bet there are Amish who secretly use it.
Is this a government decision? Yes or no.
Joy, the future of our nation is not at risk. Universal health care is a good idea.
My freedom is at risk, Hal. And the future of our country is a function of how free we are. I feel like I’m arguing with my 12 year old son who’s seen one documentary put out by a union!
This may not be YOUR personal issue, but one day, it will be.
Hal said ”
61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage. The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration’s rule, while 32 percent oppose it.
Majorities of both men and women said they are in favor of the rule, though support among women is especially pronounced, with 66 percent supporting and 26 percent opposing it. Among men, 55 percent of men are in favor; 38 percent object.”
Hal you are wrong. Your numbers are bogus.
Can you quote the actual source of your statistics (website, publication, etc)?
Is it Guttamacher (a.k.a. Planned Parenthood)?
However, if you really love “choice”, the Government should NOT mandate insurance companies to cover sterilization, Ella, etc.
Where’s the “choice” in that mandate?
Furthermore, it’s an infringement on the conscience of millions of Catholics (as well as Christians, Jewish, Muslims, etc.).
Hal, wake up!
President Obama is NOT your Messiah!!!
No one is compelling anyone to use contraception. Relax, all is well.
I think Jon Stewart nailed it best: “Religious freedom does not mean ‘you get whatever you want’.”
Then there are those who support the president because he’s their man and dissent — even in support of the country’s founding principles and the rule of law, which subordinates leadership to a Constitution — is unthinkable.
rasqual,
This is what I also see among many of the enamored Obama sheeple. They, like Obama, are too narcissistic to admit that they were wrong about this sociopath and what he stands for.
Many have scraped the Obama bumper stickers off some time ago but there is a scary segment who still mindlessly follow him.
Richard, numbers come from new York times
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377864-503544/poll-most-back-mandating-contraception-coverage/
Comments not appearing.
Hal, wrong again. All is NOT well!
New York Times and CBS are not impartial resources in this matter and their poll appears to be very flawed, see
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/15/cbs-promotes-biased-poll-on-obama-anti-conscience-mandate/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2012/50_oppose_gov_t_mandate_for_religious_organizations_to_provide_contraceptives
However, a President that manadtes coverage against one’s conscience should scare everybody, even you!
BTW, how come Planned Parenthood’s CEO, Cecile Richards was one of Obama’s top advisors in editing this manadate and Catholic institutions leaders were not? Any thought?
They were probably looking for rational input.
troll 1 (tr??l)
— vb
1. angling
a. to draw (a baited line, etc) through the water, often from a boat
b. to fish (a stretch of water) by trolling
c. to fish (for) by trolling
2. to roll or cause to roll
3. archaic to sing (a refrain, chorus, etc) or (of a refrain, etc) to be sung in a loud hearty voice
4. informal ( Brit ) ( intr ) to walk or stroll
5. homosexual slang ( intr ) to stroll around looking for sexual partners; cruise
6. slang ( intr ) computing to post deliberately inflammatory articles on an internet discussion board
— n
7. the act or an instance of trolling
8. angling a bait or lure used in trolling, such as a spinner
9. slang computing a person who submits deliberately inflammatory articles to an internet discussion
[C14: from Old French troller to run about; related to Middle High German trollen to run with short steps]
Hal – which one are you?
Awe sucks, I’m just having some fun with you guys. Everyone is so worked up ( as usual around here). The sky has been falling for years, but in real life, everything is pretty good.
“…but in real life, everything is pretty good”
Not at all, Hal, not at all.
Luckly, we still have God’s grace!
Wake up, Hal!
Hal, I can appreciate it, but for some of us, this is TRULY important.
And if you’ve noticed, life hasn’t been all that great for the 50 or so million babies that have been aborted.
I understand why you think the abortion issue is important, but the rest of this is simply a lot of sound and fury. Personally, I’m against IVF, but if my insurance covered it, I’d simply not take advantage of that particular benefit.
Hal, if your insurance covers it, you are paying for it. As simple as that!
Therefore, a Catholic institution is forced to go against its conscience.
To honor your conscience, you would have to decline insurance (as a Catholic hospital for example), pay the $2,000 fine per eployee to the Government and go out of business.
So, either you abide by the mandate or you close down all Catholic hospitals, Universities, assistance programs, etc.
Catholics, like the rest of us, have to pay for lots of things we disapprove of.. Death penalty, war, etc. I don’t see why a catholic institution can accept this insurance and simply urge their members to avoid sinning. If a person did take advantage of contraception benefits, that’s on their conscience. That’s what free will is all about, right?
Hal, I’m going to explain this one more time, and then I’m out.
Sigh.
The teachings about contraception is HUNDREDs of years old, part and parcel of the Gospel Of Life. To require any Catholic group to include BC in their insurance plans is requiring them to buy it themselves—that’s how insurance works. To require the BC offering, you are then requiring them to sin, ie, be unable to practice their religion freely WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The Church does not “disapprove” of bc–it FORBIDS IT. It is a MORTAL SIN. To you, that may be inconsequential. For many, it is the difference between heaven and hell.
Stop repeating the same s#$t over and over.
Your boy did not have to do this. But if he wants a fight, he’s got one.
Okay, thanks. We’ll see how this plays out. Either way, we’ll be okay.
(*sigh*) You really do have days, Hal, where you make it virtually impossible to distinguish you from a troll, and where you push even those of super-human patience to the point of saying, “He’s just being inflammatory and mocking our pain for the sheer enjoyment of it; it’s really not worth taking him seriously or talking to him, anymore.”
Do you really mean to do that, just for the sake of satisfying your appetite for mockery?
Just trying to help give you some perspective. (and partially, I really don’t understand). I’ve learned a lot here over the years, and have stepped out of the abortion debates because I get where you’re coming from and can respect your view. some of this other stuff seems simply driven by hatred for all things Obama. California, for example, has had a similar rule for years and not a peep from the Church.
Hal: There’s no enumerated right to have insurance, or to provide insurance, or anything like it. There is a right to exercise one’s freedom of religion. It’s actually enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, not merely yammered about in forums and polls.
The country operates by the rule of law, not of forum rhetoric. And the courts work with that. Whatever trolling wit you might imagine scores rhetorical points, it’s the legal ones that matter.
Hal: “California, for example, has had a similar rule for years and not a peep from the Church.”
Right, the typical logic: You let someone shake their fist at you. You let them holler into your face. You let them poke you in the chest. And because you were patient and believed the best about them — that they wouldn’t “go there” — you’re now obliged to let them bludgeon your face.
Inaction in the past obligates one to avoid all action in the future.
Tolerating n% of a thing disqualifies a person from being intolerant of 2n% of a thing.
Hal, how stupid is that?
By that logic, the more painful a stimulus gets, the more you’re obliged to endure it because hitherto, you did nothing about it. The worse a rash gets, the less time you have to take action because if you endure it too long, folks like Hal will show up to say “you did nothing. You’re now obliged to remain consistent with that posture of inaction. Sorry. You lose.”
Good grief.
“Universal health care is a good idea.”
Requiring people to buy it, or effectively subsidizing it for someone else on the backs of you or me, isn’t.
“That’s what free will is all about, right?”
Hal, the problem is that Obama is taking away from all of us the “free will” to abide according to ones conscience.
If someone were to buy sterilizzation or Ella out of his/her free will, it would be a matter between his/her conscience and God, but according to Obama we MUST buy BC, so we are all (willing or not) coerced to sin.
Basically, Obama makes his rule greater than our consicence and, in turn of God’s law.
I hope this explains why “all is NOT right” and why you too, regardless what you beleive, you should stand up against the mandate.
“Hal: There’s no enumerated right to have insurance, or to provide insurance, or anything like it. There is a right to exercise one’s freedom of religion. It’s actually enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, not merely yammered about in forums and polls.”
The right to exercise one’s freedom of religion does not supersede the obligation to obey “neutral laws of general applicability” (Supreme Court’s wording, not mine).
Anyone who would endeavor to understand the constitutional implications of the contraception mandate should read this short and simple explanation of the relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/12/employment-division-v-smith/
Hal says:
California, for example, has had a similar rule for years and not a peep from the Church.
Untrue.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20031201&slug=churchlaws01
So if its all about free will, then I can choose not to obey the government. Thanks for clearing that up!
The United States was founded on a revolution. Revolutions tend to involved disobeying a government. This doesn’t mean that every act of civil disobedience is revolutionary, but it does mean that U.S. citizens ought to understand that unquestioning allegiance to the state is not a traditional American posture.
Joan: You’re talking as if the RFRA didn’t exist. RFRA’s lost authority with respect to state actions — but we’re not talking about state actions.
Those pesky legal distinctions.
Learn: http://goo.gl/hb1GP
Great article rasqual.
Here’s a live link for joan:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223003824714664.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Mary Ann, of course you can choose not to obey the government. I have done so many times.
“Joan: You’re talking as if the RFRA didn’t exist. RFRA’s lost authority with respect to state actions — but we’re not talking about state actions.”
The article I linked to clearly pointed out that the RFRA, technically, still applies to the federal government, but that’s only because City of Boerne v. Flores strictly dealt with the actions of a local/state government and therefore the Supreme Court’s holding was only applicable for that circumstance. If the contraception “mandate” ends up in federal court, it will almost certainly be upheld and in the process the RFRA will be struck down completely. Of course, the USCCB is entirely within its rights to give it a shot all the same. I hope they go for it, so this stupid issue can be put to bed once and for all.
Joan said: “Of course, the USCCB is entirely within its rights to give it a shot all the same. I hope they go for it, so this stupid issue can be put to bed once and for all.”
Joan, sorry, but it’s NOT a “stupid” issue. I don’t think you get the much larger implications of this mandate. If this manadate is upheld, virtually the Government can mandate anything.
Do you really want that? Where’s your “pro-choice” side?
joan: “The article I linked to clearly pointed out that the RFRA, technically, still applies to the federal government, but that’s only because City of Boerne v. Flores strictly dealt with the actions of a local/state government and therefore the Supreme Court’s holding was only applicable for that circumstance.”
Did you even READ that decision (Boerne v. Flores) before posting? And are you aware in the least that Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegeta (2006) completely contradicts your claim that if Boerne v. Flores weren’t only a state issue, the court would have overturned RFRA?
In Gonzales, the court upheld RFRA unanimously and rigorously explained its applicability at a federal level.
Obama’s HHS is a federal agency.
So to quote you, “Anyone who would endeavor to understand the constitutional implications of the contraception mandate should read this short and simple explanation of the relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence” — yes, including Gonzales.
Nice of you to “endeavor to [mis]understand” or, perhaps, attempt to deceive.
In fact, I think I’ll re/mis-quote joan from a year ago, by way of commemorating how much she respects the court:
The best way to commemorate civil rights cases like these is to read the court opinions in their entirety and make an effort to fully understand not just the legal holding, but more importantly the legal reasoning behind them. It’s not enough to simply know that religious freedom is a constitutionally guaranteed right. We should also understand why it is so. We are also given occasion to reflect upon the importance and value of having a functional judiciary that is not subject to the constantly-changing whims of the democratic political system.
Let me know when you’re done celebrating a good read of Gonzales.
Joan waxes all noble-sounding when it’s Roe. When it’s religious liberty in the courts, though, and convinced that the concerns of religious will be shot down, she hopes the bishops “go for it, so this stupid issue can be put to bed once and for all.”
When it’s at best a controversial penumbral right Roe found, it’s all profound rhetoric. When it’s an actual enumerated right in the Constitution and an act of Congress as a lawmaking power (RFRA with stare decisis backing it), she doesn’t. give. a. damn.
Wow.
Just hard to take someone like that at all seriously.
:) My dear rasqual, I’ll break character and reply with great brevity: “Just hard to take someone like that at all seriously.” translates readily as “Don’t feed the troll!”
Well, she made a pretense of literacy on the matter. That went beyond trolling, I’ll give her credit for that. I just couldn’t tolerate her apparent presumption that her misrepresentation of the facts would be credulously accepted by folks she apparently thinks are — what, stupid?
Aargh.