Bishops need to man up
Listen, you fools. YOU DON’T SHUT ANYTHING DOWN. You keep going exactly as you have been, and you force those dirty rotten SOBs to literally storm your hospitals and shut YOU down at gunpoint.
And I’m not kidding.
Make them physically shut down your hospital by dragging you out at gunpoint. Make them physically shut down your schools. Make them shut down your university by force because you won’t cover abortions in your student health plan. Make them physically shut down your soup kitchens. Make them shut down your adoption agencies because you won’t hand a baby boy over to two men who like to jam various and sundry body parts up each others’ rectums.
In other words, STAND AND FIGHT.
~ Ann Barnhardt, admonishing the bishops to resist the healthcare mandates imposed by the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, Sancte Pater, May 25
[Hat Tip: moderator Gerard Nadal; photo of the execution of Father Francisco Vera courtesy of Monterey Traditional Latin Mass]
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.
Preach it, sister.
If the bishops only knew how much their flocks wanted them to grow a pair and defend their Mother.
Yep, play chicken with them. It will probably work too. The Church runs WAY too many hospitals and it would be a public disgrace for the Gov’t to shut them down.
Heads, Obama wins, tails, religious freedom loses.
If Catholic institutions comply, life goes on, and gradually, more and more anti-religious laws and regulations will pass. Religious freedom will continue to die a slow death.
If Catholic institutions fight, and mass-scale shutdowns happen, then we’re going to see an anti-Catholic, and anti-religious backlash in this country like never seen before, and things will become very ugly very fast. When the hospitals are shut down, and the sick have no where to go, the average citizen is not going to sympathize with Catholics because they don’t want to pay for birth control. As one bishop once said, “I expect my successor to die in a prison cell, and his successor to be martyred in the public square.”
Like Romney or not, he’s the only way we get out of this mess. At least for now.
Well if it comes to that, Catholics will be outnumbered by their non-Catholic supporters. That’s not even in question. It won’t be lonely. All of us “separated brethren” — not to mention a vast number of civil libertarians — will be on board.
What are the odds that Catholics are actually going to be forced out of soup kitchens at gunpoint?
The debate is over whether or not Person A can deny birth control coverage to Person B and others- say, their employees- because Person A is a Catholic or otherwise personally objects to birth control on religious grounds. It’s a worthy debate.
The birth control, it needs to be pointed out, is still not free. People will pay monthly premiums and/or work at a job with adequate health coverage. The birth control is, again, not free. It’s still being paid for in one way or another by the individual who receives the birth control. The issue is whether or not birth control ought to be covered if the employer is a Catholic/religious individual who disagrees with contraception.
It comes down to a debate that frames resistance to the mandate as protection of conscience/religion versus protection of the rights of employees. This debate is older than Barack Obama’s presidency- California, for instance, has already taken on this issue. Their Supreme Court ruled that birth control must be covered. However, the law, if I’m not mistaken (and if I am, I will concede to anyone’s superior knowledge), only required Catholic organizations that employ non-Catholics/Catholics who use birth control to cover contraceptives. If the Catholic organization in question only hired Catholics, they didn’t have to cover contraceptives.
So there’s the debate. Barnhardt is only making people hysterical. There’s no “slippery slope” that’s going to result in Catholics being forcibly removed from hospitals and soup kitchens. This will not result in Catholics being shot in public squares, as the image implies. That’s a fear-based argument to stir up misplaced feelings of persecution.
You’re probably right about the shootings–for now. But I don’t know about the mass closings. The HHS mandate forces Catholic organizations to provide birth control in their employee health policies. Artificial birth control is contrary to the tenets of the faith–not just the consuming of the birth control, but the provision of it as well. As a Catholic husband would be complicit in his wife’s use of artificial birth control–he doesn’t take it, but he goes along with it. It does not matter that the employees believe or don’t believe in this Catholic tenet. That little wrinkle isn’t going to cause the bishops to mop their brows and say “Phew! I thought you meant we had to provide it to our nuns! Well in that case, HHS is fine with us!” Not gonna happen. The Catholic Church’s opposition to contraception and abortion inducing drugs is not, as some suppose, a custom or a cute little oddity. The Church says it wrong. You may disagree with that. But that’s Her position. And the Church thinks it’s wrong across the board. They aren’t going to provide it to anyone.
Vannah,
A new bill just mandates that all of us secular folks have to go to church on Sunday. It doesn’t force us to actually believe in what they preach there, we are just being compelled to go.
See how this doesn’t work yet?
While I can appreciate Barnhardt’s frustration, I disagree that the Bishops aren’t acting like “men” and that they aren’t fighting. I think her tone was disrespectful to say the least.
Stormtroopers dragging people out at gunpoint would actually be preferable to the way this is going to happen. It’ll happen in court. An endless avalanche of lawsuits directed at hospitals and universities, and missions, etc., until they’re all bankrupt and have no choice but to close their doors. The government will not gift the Church with pictures showing the Gov. to be the bully it is. Instead, it will feed the public the propaganda that the Gov. is defending the folks who are being denied by the big, bad, heartless Church. Screw Religious freedom! Religious freedom will mean nothing anymore.
Right now Catholics in America need to step up! It’s US who must man-up and FIGHT. And the first thing we have to do is stop complaining about our Bishops and start supporting them and praying for them. They are taking the big hits right now for us. How about a little humility and loyalty on our part!
I’m not saying there isn’t room for different strategies here, only that criticizing our leaders right now is counterproductive and lazy on our part. For the first time in decades, the Catholic bishops are united and determined to defend the Faith whatever the cost. That’s not something to jeer at. We need to have their backs.
X,
Your argument is based off of a comparison. You’ve drawn up a scenario to highlight perceived flaws in my argument. Therefore, your argument is successful if and only if your scenario is the moral equivalent of my argument. If your comparison is not morally equivalent to my argument, then your argument is considered irrelevant and fallacious.*
Here is your scenario: The government requires that secular (or, presumably, any and all non-Christian) individuals to attend church on Sundays. This is wrong and is a violation of our rights as human beings. Your argument is simplified as Person A is being forced by the government to violate his or her religious (or secular) principles.
This is not the moral equivalent of my argument. My argument is that some Catholics (but not all) don’t believe in birth control on religious grounds. This is their right and I respect it. Some Catholics (maybe even most) hire non-Catholics. Non-Catholics very often (maybe even usually) see no issue with birth control and may require it. Should Catholics be obligated to cover birth control in their healthcare packages for their employees? Is this a violation of their rights? Is it a violation of the employee’s rights for the Catholic employer to impose their morality upon them? The arugment simplified: the interests of Person A and the interests of Person B are in conflict with one another.
Your argument leaves out the rights and interests of Person B and focuses solely on Person A. This makes your comparison different from my argument. You have forgotten that there are women who need birth control and have already paid for it by working for their employer and/or paying a monthly premium. To refuse to give them this coverage is, in essence, stealing from female employees and discriminating against them, as male employees are not subjected to the same practice. Your comparison is only relevant to my argument if I, too, focused solely on the rights of Person A. This means that I would have had to argue that the government has the right to force Catholics to take birth control or something the moral equivalent. No one is proposing such a measure and, because your comparison is irrelevant, your argument is fallacious.
*I sat through a semester of reasoning and critical thinking for a purpose…
Her phrases are hardly more histrionic than “women will by dying on the floor!!!!”
No one NEEDS birth control, Vannah. You’ve lost the fight already.
In a fight between Vannah and X, I’d put my money on X every time.
If we have the Xs and Rasquals in our country in this fight it, we will be just fine.
If the bishops don’t want to follow the law, then they should no longer receive taxpayer funded grants and Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements. The hypocrisy here is astounding. While they’re braying about the evils of contraception, a number of Catholic colleges already are paying for contraceptive coverage in their health care. And if they’re so concerned about Catholic money being spent for birth control (and it’s the insurance company money), then they should only employ Catholics as their non-Catholic workers could be spending their Catholic funded paycheck on birth-control. And as far as other faith communities standing with the Catholics, forget about it. The Clergy Coalition for Choice supports the policy as do all the mainstream Protestant and Jewish groups. Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Hospital Association, is fully on board.
And BTW, the HHS mandate doesn’t require coverage for abortions. Only the Catholic Church believes that emergency contraception induces abortions. Actual abortion inducing drugs, like RU 486, are not covered. Ms. Barnhardt is engaging in some histrionic fantasies. There will be no scenarios that she imagines. Rather, the federal spigot will be cut off and licenses will be lost which will mean that the Church might not be able to provide any insurance.
And if the Catholic providers shut down, so be it. Maybe others will take their place. Massachusetts is getting along just fine without Catholic Adoption Services.
“In other words, STAND AND FIGHT.”
Ann,
Great post. It may be too late for them to stand up. They wimped out for so long, the train has left the station. My Bishop (Cardinal Sean O’Malley) has Obama cronies running the Archdiocese of Boston. See Obama fundraiser Jack Conners.
http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/continuing-connors-code-of-conduct-conundrum/
Praxedes,
Tell that to the women who take birth control to prevent ovarian cysts from rupturing.
Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a strong correlation between a woman’s ability to control her reproduction and her ability to control her economic standing, her education, and her life. Pro-choice individuals stretch this out so that reproductive control covers abortion as well. Pro-life individuals deny this basic fact- that women have throughout history been used as vessels to carry heirs and their sexuality and reproductive capabilities have been manipulated against them to keep them subservient to men. To admit this basic fact is not to justify abortion, which is why I think many pro-lifers avoid admitting it. One can still make the argument on behalf of women’s reproductive empowerment and still say, “But I think abortion is unrelated to reproductive power. I think abortion is another matter entirely. I don’t extend my belief in such reproductive power to cover abortion.” You can still believe that.
Birth control is a part of that reproductive power. Women control their reproduction and then they control their lives (please see the previous paragraph if you are going to make a counter argument involving abortion). It is very much necessary.
And even if it weren’t, we must decide if Catholic employers have the right to decide, “Well, I don’t agree with it, so you can’t have it, even though you pay your premium and/or show up for work every day.” If you got a job working wherever and your employer was a Christian Scientist who doesn’t believe in doctors, would he/she have the right to deny you healthcare coverage because it conflicts with his or her beliefs? What about Catholics who work for insurance companies? We have to ask these questions, not just stop at birth control.
15.00 a month at Target.
Don’t work for a Catholic place if you can’t hang. I was a librarian at an Episcopal boarding school and I had to go to Sunday services as part of the boarding community. Did I like it? No. Did I want to go to my church? Yes. But I sucked it up. I was free to go somewhere else to work.
I go to a MS Lutheran Church and I am totally feeling the Spirit calling me to preach. But there are no female preachers in the LCMS. So I go somewhere else where I can.
And seriously, if you are not a seriously practicing Catholic or MS Lutheran, you may not be able to tell that our culture is ENTIRELY under attack. We are so sick of being called intolerant when all we want to do is be FAITHFUL. Don’t ask trhe Church to make a deal with the devil and try to make it seem like it’s not. She has her position. Again, if you can’t hang, go to all those Episcopal hospitals that service the poor.
PS–Vannah, every woman in this country is able to control her “reproductive power,” free of charge.
Jen, you’re right we should stand with our bishops. The laity should be doing the fighting for the most part. But Jasper is also right. The priests and bishops were too quiet for too long on this one. And Vannah, where to begin…my husband works for an insurance company that covers all kinds of things we don’t avail ourselves of on religious grounds. No one is forced to work for a Catholic institution, and if they choose too, they can negotiate a salary that will enable them to pay for whatever they want to do in their off time. And as for your “Person B”, employers can write policies to include or exclude all kinds of things. We’ve run into a few situations where our health insurance company would typically cover a procedure or drug, but the employer decided to exclude that item to save money, or whatever.
My argument is that some Catholics (but not all) don’t believe in birth control on religious grounds.
And my argument is that ACTUAL Catholics actually follow the tenants of their faith. My argument is that a foundational tenant of the Catholic faith is that hormonal contraception use is sinful. I don’t give a rat’s rear if some “Catholics” still “believe in” birth control/use birth control-the actual tenants of the faith prohibit birth control use. Period. Just like my convictions mean that I can’t participate in Catholicism since I’m not personally opposed to birth control, so making me attend Catholic services would be a violation of my convictions, Catholics can’t be compelled to provide contraception in part or whole. Granted, there are still “Catholics” like joan, I’m sure, who think that sitting in a pew on Easter or Christmas make her a Catholic, even though she espouses things that absolutely rule out Catholicism for her-you can’t legislate what a religion can or must do based on the actions of people who falsely profess to have that faith but don’t practice it or even agree with it.
No one is preventing any woman from purchasing her own birth control. No one is forcefully inseminating women and demanding that they lose control of their “reproductive power”. The ONLY thing we are talking about is defending the religious freedom of the Catholic Church, and the only reason I defend the religious freedom of the Catholic Church is because I value my freedom, and if a government can take liberty from one person or entity, the government can take liberty from ANY person or entity. Yeah, getting “free” stuff sounds good, Vannah, but the price of that “free” stuff can end up being awfully high when it actually costs constitutional protections.
Yes, but see, you guys are also assuming four things:
1). That every single person who works for a Catholic organization is just able to quit and move elsewhere. No worries about the bills to pay or the mouths to feed (yes, even those women who are dosin’ on the whore pills have children).
2). That all Catholic employers are associated with Catholic Charities. Catholics are everywhere and not all of them are in charge of a Catholic hospital or adoption agency. Some (most?) work in an otherwise secular environment.
3). That Catholic organizations will be able to serve the community by alienating members of the community. Please keep in mind that Catholic-run charities and hospitals are a collabortion between the Church and the community, which is a mixture of Catholics and non-Catholics.
4). That it’s somehow very Catholic to institute a policy of “my way or the highway.”
This isn’t an attack on the Catholic church. You’re not going to find a bigger advocate of religious tolerance than me. I respect Catholicism. I respect Christianity. But I don’t respect the mindset that it’s somehow okay to declare a monopoly on the law and use it to passive-aggressively punishing people for having sex, even if they aren’t a part of your religion. We can work this out so that women and their religious employers aren’t in conflict with each other. We are capable of finding a balance and ensuring the best possible course of action (and a large majority of the country will rule out, “No sex for the poor!” as the best possible course of action, to be frank).
Would Catholic adoption agencies refuse to hand over a baby to a man and a woman who liked to jam various body parts up each other’s rectums?
I’m not saying that they should be required to adopt to gay parents. Just that it seems off-base to make the focus of the objection the specific sex act rather than the “unfitness” of the parents. I assume that Catholic agencies would not adopt to a celibate gay couple, for example. Because the central objection to homosexuality is not about “jamming things up rectums” but rather something more fundamental. It’s just easier to go for the “ew” factor, I guess. Just seems unnecessary to me.
I posted this on facebook yesterday and a friend of mine told me that while she agrees with the idea and frustration behind this article, the fact remains that we should still remain respectful to our Bishops and Priests. She shared with me that when she was little, she was told that if a Priest and an angel were walking down the street, to whom do you show more respect? You show more respect to the Priest because he is persona Christi.
While I am absolutely up there with this woman in terms of the desire to see a fight be waged (I’m also tired of watching the wishy washy political correctness run amok), I will do what I need to do to remain respectful to my Bishops and Priests. I’ll fight with them in whatever manner they need me to fight and right now, they need our support and like Jen said, they need US to stand up. Yes, some of our Priests and Bishops have failed us the last 40-50 years, but that is no excuse for us to just sit back and blame them. We now know the truth and we must stand up and fight.
Vannah, the BC stance has been paert of the Church for EVER. It’s not like they tell their employees, “Well, you know, if enough of you want it, we could reconsider….” It’s a monolithic teaching. They are not going into folks’ bedrooms and saying “No contraception”; they’re saying we will not be party to providing you with it. That’s it. If you want it, fine, go get it.. DO NOT INVOLVE US.
PS–There are plenty of things I cannot participate in because I simply can’t afford them. But when I’m sure I could find 15.00 a month. Heck, I spend more than that on the diet Coke machine in the break room.
PS–God’s way is “My way or the highway.”
Why wouldn’t His Church be any different?
@Vannah: The problem is you are looking at this debate as Catholics either letting those who wish to get birth control do so or preventing them from doing so. And that’s wrong. To be clear, since we argue both of these sorts of wrongness frequently ’round these parts, it’s not wrong morally, it’s wrong factually. Neither the Catholic Church nor any Catholic employers do now have, have ever had, or will ever have, the ability to keep someone from purchasing their own birth control. Those people are free to buy what they choose with their own money.
The question is, essentially, whether the government can force Catholic employers to buy birth control for people, even when those Catholic employers are morally opposed to such a purchase. The Catholic employer can not stop their employees from buying these things on their own, but the Catholic employer has every right to refuse to be a party to an action they find morally objectionable. To force them to do otherwise violates their religious freedoms, regardless of the fact that the employee in question can get their birth control another way.
And, even outside of the religious objections, the birth control mandate is problematic even in the secular sense in that it requires the public to fund private recreational activities. If someone wants to have sex for fun, that’s their lookout. But since it’s their chosen recreational activity, it is their responsibility to buy whatever equipment they need to do it. I am a certified SCUBA diver. I absolutely agree insurance should cover my pressure treatments if I get the bends. Just like it should cover penicillin for someone who gets an STD. I don’t expect insurance to buy me a dive computer any more than the person having sex for recreation should expect it to buy their birth control. Kristen Walker goes into somewhat more detail, in more humorous fashion, on this subject here.
So, even if there weren’t the violation of religious freedoms, the HHS mandate would still be an outrageous overreach by the government. But by trying to force Catholics to fund things to which they are religiously opposed (but do not have, and never have had, preventative powers over and are not asking for preventative powers about), the mandate does violate religious freedoms and ought to be opposed.
And I say this as someone who is decidedly not a Catholic.
Man up by breaking the law? When will this site stop endorsing illegal, antisocial behavior?
I fear that with each successive legislative/judicial failure (PRENDA tanking yesterday), the “pro-life” movement is going to become gradually more and more radicalized.
Joan, I certainly hope so. I hope more and more Americans start taking the “radical” stand of defending preborn children from slaughter. I hope more and more people have the “radical” idea that the child in the womb is a human being we have no “right” to kill. I hope more and more people acquire the “radical” courage to fight to change our unjust and immoral laws.
“…passive aggressively punish people for having sex…”
lol! You realize that you can still purchase condoms in certain restrooms for about 75 cents-$1 each, right? Unless the Catholic Church is going around snatching all those from people and keeping them from buying condoms, too.
Oh, wait, you mean the Catholic Church isn’t going around preventing people from buying hormonal contraceptives or destroying condoms?!
Also, Vannah, this is outrageous:
“…dosin’ on the whore pills…”
Nobody here is using that kind of language but YOU. See anything wrong with that?
Jesus had no problem calling the pharisees “hypocrites”.
What I’m getting from Ann’s rant (and I’m not speaking for her, BTW) is that the bishops, and the catholic faithful for that matter, should not be making it easy for quasi-marxists. Read her full post.
Shutting down institutions by their own accord will permit O and his buds to frame the issue as the fault of the catholic church. If the bishops could embrace some of what inspired the martyrs of the past two millenia, then here’s a golden opportunity for the cigar to totally blow up in the Administration’s face.
Joan,
What is the zip code in ‘never, never land’?
Do you get charged for long distance if you call ‘realville’?
Do you and CC work at being stupid or does it just come natural to you?
It is females like yooos gals that make real women look bad.
You say you want equality, but you like homosexuals you demand preferential treatment based on your lifestyle choices.
Time to ‘cowgirl up’ and be real women and take responsibility for your choices and quit demanding that others subsidize your stupidity.
Wow, was it really necessary to include that last sentence? Straight couples insert various things, too.
It’s been my experience that same sex couples are more willing to foster/adopt children that are difficult to place — older kids, sibling groups, children of color, and those with mental/physical disabilities. Would you really rather see a child in a home with abusive straight parents than a loving home with a gay couple?
X – thanks for getting it.
Vannah – listen to X
ken – thanks for saying much of what I was thinking
phillymiss – I adopted an older sibling group of color (not my color) with mental issues – and I am not sticking anything up my boyfriend – rather, I am blessed by a wonderful wife. I don’t buy your baloney that gay people are more willing to adopt children that are harder to place. And I challenge you to prove it with a decent scientific study or take it back.
X is right. If the govt can compel Catholics to change course and violate their own teaching, the govt can force or penalize *anyone* with beliefs that contradict the govt beliefs.
The mandate needs to be resisted by Catholics and anyone who cares about American freedoms.
So sad Vannah, who seems to be of goodwill
toward everyone, doesn’t recognize that.
Whatever happened to ‘you can keep your insurance if you like it’. No I can’t keep my insurance, not without the govt attempting to alter Catholic-run insurance.
Quit demanding that others subsidize your stupidity.
An0ther one for my quote of the day booklet. Thanks, Ken!
2). That all Catholic employers are associated with Catholic Charities. Catholics are everywhere and not all of them are in charge of a Catholic hospital or adoption agency. Some (most?) work in an otherwise secular environment.
Actually, this is a group that I think is being mostly ignored. ANY Catholic person that runs a company should be free to exclude these morally objectionable items from their employees health benefits. The free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution to individuals.
“
Make them shut down your adoption agencies because you won’t hand a baby boy over to two men who like to jam various and sundry body parts up each others’ rectums.”
–
It is unfortunate that in a serious subject worthy or serious debate, Ms. Barnhardt exposes herself as a hateful, stupid person not measuring up to the maturity needed to come up with adult solutions.
For a while fresh out of college I couldn’t afford a car. When I was job hunting, I only chose jobs that were easily accessible on public transit.
When I was apartment hunting, many ads said no pets allowed. I did not want to give up my pets, so I didn’t even look at apartments that didn’t allow pets.
When you are job hunting, you’ve got to ask yourself: Am I willing to accept the circumstances? Don’t work for an organization that you don’t support. I for example would never take a job at an abortion business. I would never tell you that I am so starving I must kill babies or die. We are grown ups. Grown ups need to make choices. Stop acting like we were coddled little babies that must have our widdle govemint do all our diaper changes for us. If having birth control means that much to you, then buy it yourself. It’s ELECTIVE for crying out loud.
ninek – having children is elective as well – would you then support a business owner who decided not to cover any sort of wellness coverage, as well as any maternity and labor costs?
PS As I said before, her last sentence is offensive to a lot of people, but no less offensive than declaring that your adversaries are waging a ‘war on women’ while your allies rip baby girls apart before they’re born.
So ninek – you essentially believe if somebody else is acting poorly, that gives full permission to act poorly as well?
I’m just saying Ms. Barnhardt, in my book, said a very stupid, hateful thing in that rant and I think it is deserving of people to call her out.
The problem here as usual is that we are not dealing with men and women of good will. There is a reason why Catholics pray for peace on Earth to people of good will, and it’s because vile liars and slanderers do not deserve peace. Anyone who says that it’s the Catholic Church that is the Constitution violating aggressor in the HHS mandate, rather than the federal government, is either stupid, evil, or both. I agree with Ann. Let the government come in and close our hospitals, our schools, and our charities at gunpoint. The Church has already buried numerous tyrannical regimes in the last 2000 years. I’ll go stand in front of the Catholic free clinic in my city as the government sends armed men to close it. Let them trample me to death because the clinic doesn’t give out free birth control. And then let the nation WAKE UP and see the MADNESS of tyrants.
Yes Crazy John – I’m sure the government is going to send armies to shut down the facilities. And yes, they might trample you to death.
Yes, I’m sure the voices in your head have convinced you of these things…I think I can see the armies now…
My goodness…
John L – amen, brother. Call me, and I will be there beside you.
http://aquinasdad.blogspot.com/2012/05/poor-reason-to-return.html
“Man up by breaking the law? When will this site stop endorsing illegal, antisocial behavior?”
As long as it’s “pro-life,” anything goes. Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder et.al. are considered heroes by some (probably most) in the pro-life sector. And while the “sidewalk counselors” are not breaking the law, they harass women and that’s just fine for those who think they are “saving babies.” Because they live in such a tight knit group (cult?) they have absolutely no clue as to what those who are not in their cult are thinking. If they do realize it, they won’t acknowledge it other than to say that these folks are going to hell or whatever.
“The Church has already buried numerous tyrannical regimes in the last 2000 years.”
Actually, in 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has been on the side of tyrannies. Let’s look at the twentieth century. – Franco, Hitler, the Croatians, Mussolini, the priest who ruled Slovakia.
John, if you are a product of Catholic education, you really need to educate yourself on the real church history because your teachers probably didn’t both to inform you about the tyranny of your church. Lesseee – Inquisition, Crusades…
Thanks Bryan. I see the men and women of ill will have shown up. The ones who support the current tryannical regime. That’s OK. They’ll either repent or face judgment.
And while you folks bray about how easy it is to get birth control consider that your movement, aided in large part by the Catholic Church, has succeeded in passing laws that allow anti-birth control pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Recently, in Oklahoma, a pharmacist refused to provide emergency contraception to a woman who was raped. And as has been said, if a woman is already paying for health care, she is paying, in part for birth control.
Again – If the insurance company pays for the birth control, how is that a problem? How do you address the dichotomy between the church’s position on birth control and the FACT that Catholic colleges cover it? And one more time, if the church cuts paychecks for women who will use birth control, why are they complaining?
John -
I support Jesus, and I support common sense.
If you truly believe that armies are going to march on medical facilities and trample you to death, then you fail my second test. I’m sorry – but I don’t expect those sort of crazy, delusional rants from san people.
”You show more respect to the Priest because he is persona Christi.”
Tell that to all those who, as children, were been victimized by Personae Christi.
That’s OK. They’ll either repent or face judgment
Dream on.
“You say you want equality, but you like homosexuals you demand preferential treatment based on your lifestyle choices.
Time to ‘cowgirl up’ and be real women and take responsibility for your choices and quit demanding that others subsidize your stupidity”
Ah, the ugly homphobia and misogyny of the anti-choice movement rears its ugly head. First, homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. and “subsidizing stupidity.” You mean when a woman has a medical condition that necessitates taking hormonal birth control? Or when a married couple can’t afford any more children? And one more time, the HHS policy applies to only those who currently are paying for health care. So where is the “subsidy” if the insurance companies, who are more than willing to pay less for birth control than they would for childbirth, are the ones footing the bill.
But once again, your homophobia makes you such a great example of Christianity.
Ms. Bernhardt’s fantasies are something out of 50’s Catholicism that was always talking about being prepared for imminent martyrdom. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church, in tandem with Sen. Joe McCarthy and other high ranking GOP Catholics, was calling the shots. Who could forget the “legion of decency” and the “index of forbidden books.” Talk about putting your mind in a locked box. But do read the comments relating to the HHS mandate, from Catholics, on Catholic blogs. It’s not all whatever you say, holy father. Sister Carol Keehan? Bueller? Bueller?
Oh, Paladin, Paladin, why do I not think of you first? *sigh* I’ll get the scooper…
“Oh, wait, you mean the Catholic Church isn’t going around preventing people from buying hormonal contraceptives or destroying condoms?”
The Catholic Church is second to AIPAC in lobbying funds. And they strongly support “conscience clauses” for pharmacists. They also supported the Blunt Amendment which would have allowed any employer, who thinks that birth control is immoral, to deny such coverage from their employees.
“It is unfortunate that in a serious subject worthy or serious debate, Ms. Barnhardt exposes herself as a hateful, stupid person not measuring up to the maturity needed to come up with adult solutions.”
…”two men who like to jam various and sundry body parts up each others’ rectums.”
Ex-RINO,
Actually ms Barnhardt was reserved in her forray into the bizarre displays of affection between male homosexuals. She did not mention the plethora of ‘inanimate objects’ that male homosexuals shove up each others rectums.
Since when did the rectum, or rather unfetterred access to it, become sacro sanct?
Does an unambigous description of the sex practices of male homosexuals make you uncomfortable?
Are you nervous about the average american voter knowing just how freaky the ‘boys in the band’ really are?
She did mention that male homosexuals demonstrations of affection often result in their partner being admitted to the local hospital emergency room to have various and sundry inanimate objects removed from their rectums.
There is a doctor in Dallas who saves these ‘boy toys’ that he has extricated from the butts of male homosexuals. The doc preserves these artifacts as teaching tools for the med students who pass thru his preserve.
Please spare us your hyper sensibilities and feined indignance.
We prefer the truth, as ugly and as uncomfortable as it may be, tho I bet it is nothing compared to pain of having a wine bottle shoved up your anus.
If that is how male homosexuals say, “I love you.”, then how do they say, “I hate you?”
Oh, yeah. That is one other thing ms. Barnhardt did not mention: The elevated aggravated assault, sexual assault, murder and suicide rates among male homosexuals and their partners.
If that is your definition of a ‘gay’ life, then it is you who are a ‘hateful, stupid person’, who chooses to with hold or hide the harsh realties of homosexual deathstyles that might undermine your preferred view of homosexuality.
Ex-GOP, go see the movie For Greater Glory and get back to me. Fewer than 100 years ago, in North America, an anti-Catholic tyrant like Obama tried to end the practice of the Catholic faith. And he did it at gunpoint. Obviously Obama is just as evil a man as Plutarco Calles was. I wouldn’t put it past him. Heck, look at what Janet Reno did in our own country a few years ago. She sent troops in to burn innocent people to death in Waco. I don’t agree with what the Branch Davidians were doing, but they didn’t deserve to be executed.
“Does an unambigous description of the sex practices of male homosexuals make you uncomfortable?”
This is so off topic but Ms. Stanek doesn’t seem to have a problem with Ken’s hateful comments so…
Ken, you actually think that heterosexuals don’t do the same things as homosexuals? And hate to break to ya, but venereal diseases were and are a specialty of the sacred heterosexual community. And what do you think about lesbian sex? Your obsession with sexual habits is really strange and borders on the pathological.
And got non biased stats on “elevated aggravated assault” by homosexuals. Funny, when I worked for child protective, the assaults on children were from your sacred heterosexuals. And when I worked at a women’s shelter, they were being beaten up by their sacred heterosexual partners.
There are, as noted on this blog, some gays who are pro-life. You insult them.
“Would you really rather see a child in a home with abusive straight parents than a loving home with a gay couple? “
Your premise is blatantly specious.
There are plenty of married heterosexual couples who desire to adopt who are NOT abusive.
Based on the way they treat each other I would assert that male homosexuals are much more likely to ‘abuse’ a male child than a heterosexual couple, however you define ‘abuse’.
The ‘stupidity’ is indulging in a behavior that may result in a undesirable outcome when exerecising a little ‘self control’ and/or paying for your own recreational drugs would dramatically decrease your probablilities of experiencing the unintended consequences of your action.
Subsidizing that ‘behavior’ is not likely to discourage it, but experience has demonstrated repeatedly that if you want more of anything ‘subsidize’ it.
Thank GOD the vast majority of women are not as helpless and as clueless as you would have us believe you are.
Ken, you actually think that heterosexuals don’t do the same things as homosexuals?
I never stated or implied that homosexuals had a monopoy on deviancy.
“And hate to break to ya, but venereal diseases were and are a specialty of the sacred heterosexual community.”
For every survey you can find that says the rates of STD’s are higher in the heterosexual community I will show you two that show they are much higher among male homosexuals.
“And what do you think about lesbian sex?”
I don’t dwell any more or any less on the sex practices of ‘female homosexuals’, but I would suspect that their rates of aggravated assault, murder and suicide are higher that the heterosexual population for the same reasons as the male homosexuals.
I would also suspect that the life expectancy for both male and female homosexuals is shorter than the heterosexual population because they may be ‘gay’ but they ain’t happy.
Because I speak openly about the sex practices of homosexuals in a non-purient manner, that translates into a diagnosis of ‘sexually obsessed’ and ‘pathological’?
Do you consult tea leaves or chicken entrails to arrive at these ’pop psy’ determinations.
I can see now why you are no longer employed in social services. Your mal-practice premiums must have been asstronomical.
Did they fire you before or after the insurance company had to pay off on your behalf?
Yes, Ann Barnhardt, was doing so well with her William Wallace speech until the ugly comment about gay men. I don’t know why people work so hard at something and then set fire to it.
And it’s not “manning” up; we all have to fight the outrageousness of the Obama mandate. Our genitalia don’t make a difference here.
“Actually, in 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has been on the side of tyrannies. Let’s look at the twentieth century. – Franco, Hitler, the Croatians, Mussolini, the priest who ruled Slovakia.”
Inaccessible,
Come let us compare the fruits of the saints with fruits of the humanist barbarians.
As shameful as the darkest chapters of ‘church history’ may be, it does not hold a candle to the depravity and violence of ‘humanism’.
‘christianity’, in all it’s permtutations has accounted for more lives saved and liberated than the hundreds of millions of deaths that are attributable to ‘humanism’.
Even the muslims are more merciful, generous and kind than ‘humanists’.
When a ‘humanists’ says she is willing to tolerate you, it just means she has not yet figured out a way to censor you and/or murder you without being held accountable.
These barbarians will not condemn forced abortions in China and they will not condemn sex selection abortions in the United States because they do not not see anything wrong with either practice.
These folks are perverted in every sense of the word.
xalisae: “Oh, wait, you mean the Catholic Church isn’t going around preventing people from buying hormonal contraceptives or destroying condoms?”
cc: “The Catholic Church is second to AIPAC in lobbying funds. And they strongly support ‘conscience clauses’ for pharmacists. They also supported the Blunt Amendment which would have allowed any employer, who thinks that birth control is immoral, to deny such coverage from their employees.”
You didn’t answer the question. You can now admit freely that the Catholic Church isn’t going around preventing people from procuring contraceptives. A pharmacy that doesn’t sell you contraceptives isn’t keeping you from getting them elsewhere, nor is an employer who won’t provide them for you.
CC,
It should perhaps be the policy of the members of this comment section to ignore Ken. I’m torn on this because ignoring Ken always triggers this little internal debate- sort of a Stand up for What’s Right Team versus a You’ll Only Fan the Flames Team. I’ve settled on the latter team, finally, after several years of seriously considering him a pro-choicer with a sense of humor.
Yup. Does us no favors.
http://www.plagal.org/
John -
If your defense of your statements are “well, Mexico is close to the US” – well, we can drop the conversation there and move on. Reminds me of Sarah Palin believing she had foreign affairs knowledge because Alaska was close to Russia.
Anyway, back to the topic of Church and birth control. There are too many comments to respond to at this point, but people raise excellent points. I’ll take them to heart if people will do the same about the points that I raised.
X,
I don’t agree with you and it’s quite possible that I never will agree with you, but from what I’ve seen for some time, you’ve always been witty and brought arguments that are thought out. For this I respect you, as you make me think.
I’m terribly and painfully shy and always conflicted on political issues. I do, to my core, just want to be a good person and make good decisions. But…sometimes I’m highly irritable and sometimes I am motivated by all-consuming feelings of charity for other human beings. I am benevolent and temperamental. I think it shows in everything that I say and do and I end up plagued by feelings of fear that somehow I am on the wrong path and will wind up a bad person- a person unable to stand up for what’s right or, worse, unable to see for herself what’s right and wrong.
I tell you this not because I feel like being one of those reveals-way-too-much-information-on-the-internet types, but because I feel that I owe people here an explanation for my strange and erratic posts. I’m very open with this in my everyday life, so this particular assessment of my character isn’t the first of its kind that I’ve made.
Sometimes this affects my politics. At the present moment, I think about abortion (that, being…you all know…the theme of this blog) and don’t know what I believe anymore. I used to be very firm. Now I don’t know if I qualify as, in simple terms, pro-choice or pro-life. Maybe I need space to clear my head and think, because I want to do whatever is right.
I do know a little of what counts as the right thing to do. I do think it is just to see the humanity in people, regardless of creed or religion or politics. If I were to rate liberals and conservatives, I would rate them both as closer to Gandhi than Hitler, and both as loving and motivated (albeit, we can all be potentially misguided) by a call to good and a call to blaze a trail where there was none before. Perhaps if everyone saw the beauty in one another and not just what’s ugly in one another- and perhaps if I were always able to do that myself- we would all be on the right path and I would have my politics sorted out and know exactly where I stand on abortion and related matters.
Someday, I’ll know what is right and what is wrong about abortion. That’ll be the day.
A question for all those prolifers who think the contraceptive mandate is not a problem:
when the govt requires Catholic hospitals and clinics to perform abortions, because abortion, like contraception, is legal and some employees and patients want to pursue it, will that also be no problem for you?
“There are, as noted on this blog, some gays who are pro-life.”
If, as you purport, there are actually some male homosexuals who are pro-life then they can challenge my observations about male homosexuality.
You are not equipped to do so.
You should speak for yourself and leave it up to the homosexuals to defend, justify, rationalize their own ‘choices’.
Tho, as you contend, some heterosexuals may derive some satisfaction from inserting inanimate and animate objects in the terminus of their alimentary canal, it in no ways ’normalizes’ the deviancy and it does not surprize me.
But it is folk like you who astound me the most.
Your mental gymnastics are extra-ordinacy, but just what kind of contortions and what kind of lubrication does it take to insert your cranium in your own rectum and what kind of multitasking ablility is required to continue to offer up your inane ruminations while remaining in that wholely un-natural position?
“You insult them.”
Why should male homosexuals be insulted about my accuurate descriptions of their sexual practices and their realities. They have set aside whole weekends for ‘gay pride parades’ where they proudly proclaim who they are and what they do.
My words insult you, because I will not bow to your arbitrary and capricous definition of what passes for ‘correct’ in your mengage au horiblé.
You do understand that Sarah Palin never said that about Russia. It was a Tina Fey joke.
If today’s Americans are willing to sell out Freedom of Religious for so-called “free contraception”, then future Americans may be willing to sell out Freedom to Assembly or Freedom of the Press for other “freebies” provided by mandate of the government.
First Amendment rights must be defended. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Today’s trampling of the Bill of Rights by the Obama Administration could be replaced by tomorrow’s trampling of the Bill of Rights by a future Republican government.
That any American supports the Obama Administration on it assault of the 1st Amendment is a source of wonderment to me.
“As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.” –Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008
Great post at 9:00 p.m., Vannah.
This: Perhaps if everyone saw the beauty in one another. . . .
Please include the unborn while you are looking for beauty in others.
Wow, Ex-GOP, you showed me! I mean, who cares if a president came to power in Mexico who banned Catholicism? Who cares if it was less than 100 years ago? And also, who cares if our current president exhibits the same kind of anti-Catholic behavior? It’s not as if a democratic free nation could ever elect a madman who goes on a genocidal rampage. Such a thing could NEVER happen!
…well OK it happened in some countries, but it could NEVER happen in the USA! First we would need to elect a WOEFULLY unqualified president who never worked a day in his life and spent his school “daze” doing whatever drugs he could get his hands on. He would also have to demonstrate that he has absolutely no understanding of our Constitution whatsoever. Plus he would need to have millions of adoring, zombie-like fans who worship him based on his teleprompter reading prowess which is on par with that of a Fox News blonde. They would also need to arbitrarily declare that anyone who opposes the INSANE policies of this “man” is automatically racist for some reason. If THAT were to happen, maybe we could see the end of freedom in the USA.
“It should perhaps be the policy of the members of this comment section to ignore Ken”
Rather it should be the policy of the members of this comment section to ignore trolls. Whoops I’m violating the policy.
As for radical homosexuals, they are not content to be merely tolerated. They demand that we approve of their actions, which we cannot and will not ever do. It is true that heterosexual couples may also practice perverse sexual acts but nobody is asking us to legitimize and sanctify them. I am also unsure of how homosexuality leads to a prolife argument. Do their homosexuality and prolife views somehow flow together, like a Catholic prolifer? Or are they simply wagging their sexuality in our faces for no good reason, as is done in gay pride parades, and, honestly, EVERYTHING that is characterized as a gay event?
Ex-GOP,
Gee, thanks for the Sarah Palin crack. I would guess you know more about your next door neighbor than I do. I’d take her dealing with the Russians over Obama or, God help us, Biden.
x,
After your comment at 2:02 p.m., I’d sooner believe you taught a class in constitutional law than the president did.
John – Sure, I can’t say it would never happen – I just think it is completely and utterly irrational to make an argument on a website that essentially says, in modern day America, armies are going to charge towards Catholic facilities and trample people to death.
Hans – I’m saying nothing about Palin’s leadership – I’m simply saying that when Barb posted that Palin didn’t talk about her proximity to Russia giving her leadership skills in foreign relations, that she is wrong, and that Palin did make that comment.
Ex-GOP,
Yes she made the comment. Not to bolster herself as having great diplomatic skill, but just to say that Russia is in her ballpark. The mayor of Miami would have some knowledge of Cuba, right?
It’s just a weak attempt to belittle her. Biden had decades on committees dealing with foreign policy but was arguably trounced by Palin in their debate.
Was Obama grilled on his foreign policy expertise gathered on the streets of Chicago?
Vannah says:
….I’m terribly and painfully shy..
Me too, Vannah…me,too.
“ninek – having children is elective as well – would you then support a business owner who decided not to cover any sort of wellness coverage, as well as any maternity and labor costs?” by Ex-GOP on Jun 1, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Good point. When my husband’s company (a giant corporation) trimmed back health insurance a few years ago, this was exactly the result. The health care costs of our third child were completely out of pocket. I truly believe their lack of family emphasis leaked into their decision in categorizing maternity and childbirth. But in working for a massively secular business, I have to take it and like it. Just glad we have insurance at all. I don’t even know how to feel entitled I guess.
Dear Vannah: Thank you for your sincerity! Similar to what Praxedes said, when you “see the humanity in people, regardless of creed or religion or politics” please also see the humanity in preborn people, regardless of size or location or development or consciousness. It’s not about WHOSE rights are more important, but WHICH rights are more important.
Vannah says:
June 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm
*I sat through a semester of reasoning and critical thinking for a purpose…
I THINK YOU NEED YOUR MONEY BACK…
Your argument about interests vs. principles is totally wrong. First, the coverage is not already paid for if it is not covered in the plan. (For instance, my insurance does not cover plastic surgery and I am not paying a premium for it.) No one is “stealing from female employees” if the coverage is not provided – they are not paying for it.
Second, how in the WORLD did you get that a person’s PRINCIPLES are being violated if they are required to go to church, but a persons INTERESTS are in conflict if they don’t agree on contraception? It is even more insane to come to that conclusion when the Church’s PRINCIPLES are against contraception.
I agree that a private businessman (even a Catholic one) who wants to provide contraception coverage for his employees has freedom to do so, but to compell a religious organization to provide that coverage against their religious beliefs is far from a conflict of interests – it is a direct violation of their rights.
(reasoning and critical thinking *eyeroll*)
At the present moment, I think about abortion (that, being…you all know…the theme of this blog) and don’t know what I believe anymore. I used to be very firm. Now I don’t know if I qualify as, in simple terms, pro-choice or pro-life. Maybe I need space to clear my head and think, because I want to do whatever is right.
I’m glad to hear that. I believe that serious people on all sides of the debate ultimately want to do this. They come to different, mutually exclusive conclusions, but they are generally acting in good faith. This is often too easily forgotten.
Christopher Kaczor raised an important point that I think really puts a seemingly complex issue into perspective: if we have finally found another human life that we are truly justified in destroying and using as a means to satisfy our ends it will be the first time in history that this happened. Every other time we have used others as a resource or cast them as less important than the rest of us we ultimately were forced to recognize we were wrong.
Think about that for a moment. Modern humans have been around for hundreds of millennia. That’s a long time. This is, of course, an inductive argument (you could have said the same thing about landing on the moon). But when we’re talking about what is (iff the pro-life case is sound) the most destructive human rights abuse in history, these are not odds that I want to be on the wrong side of.
I also love how, as a sonographer, I am told if I don’t want to assist in performing abortions I should not work in the field I am in, but HEAVEN FORBID if I use that SAME argument and tell someone who wants birth control and works for a Catholic organization if they want BC they should work somewhere else. It’s always a double standard with people like that.
And there are conscience laws to protect my position!
Ex-GOP says:
June 1, 2012 at 9:36 pm
“As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.” –Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008
In the interview I saw she was talking about how Alaska had negotiated fishing treaties? (can’t remember the word that was used) with Russia because they shared a narrow maritime border. It was 100% true and like it or not that’s more experience than Obama had in foreign policy/relations.
“John – Sure, I can’t say it would never happen – I just think it is completely and utterly irrational to make an argument on a website that essentially says, in modern day America, armies are going to charge towards Catholic facilities and trample people to death.”
Of course you do, since you live on another planet where Barack Obama is a good man, rather than on this planet where he is an evil wretch who is waging war on unborn children and the Catholic Church. Now, liberals are whining about and wondering why the USCCB didn’t do more to oppose the Iraq War when they’re doing so much to fight HHS. Essentially liberals are feigning that they are perplexed as to why the Catholic Church would defend itself from an outright declaration of war from the Democratic Party. Obama says to the Church, become direct supporters of sin or lose your hospitals, lose your charities, and lose your schools. This would be like Bush demanding that Catholic schools teach their students that the Iraq War is right and just, and threatening them with fines and jail time if they don’t. It’s EVIL.
Kristen – she said trade missions (she probably went shopping) – here’s the interview. Again, Palin probably is never running for office again, so not worth debating – I’m just contradicting what an earlier poster said:
Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.Couric: Mocked?Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
John
Here is what is disappointing to me. We have countries in which Christians are actually being killed- you know that right? Countries where Christians are actually under attack.
And here, we have a government regulation that essentially says that a company/organization that offers health insurance must cover certain things – and we have an ongoing debate about what organizations should or shouldn’t be exempted from these mandates – and you take THAT and put it on the equal of what Christians are actually get killed over.
Get some perspective man. There will be no troops marching on catholic facilities – and while it is great that you are willing to die for exemptions to health care mandates, saying that doesn’t put you on the same level as actual people dying for the cause of Christ.
Stop watching some of the news you are watching and get a little perspective, and get a little counseling.
@Ex-GOP: So religious discrimination is fine as long as it isn’t quite so bad in the US as it is in other countries. Glad you cleared your thoughts on that one up for us. It’s good of you to so clearly state where you stand.
Alice – You are going to have to read all the previous comments.
John believes that armies are going to match on catholic facilities and he is willing to be trampled to death.
Do you share his views Alice?
I think his dramatic views are an insult to people actually fighting for the gospel (and not a political battle).
And here, we have a government regulation that essentially says that a company/organization that offers health insurance must cover certain things –
And here, we have a government regulation that essentially says that if you want to minister as Christ commanded you must violate your faith to do so –
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.” Matthew 25:35-36
Saint Thomas More, pray for us.
Ex-GOP says: June 1, 2012 at 11:14 pm “John – Sure, I can’t say it would never happen –
I just think it is completely and utterly irrational to make an argument on a website that essentially says, in modern day America, armies are going to charge towards Catholic facilities and trample people to death.”
Please Google and Youtube: Branch Davidians Waco
Federal agents wearing miltary helments, military bullet proof vests, firing fully automatic weapons into a dwelling housing civilian men women and children. Military helicopters flying overhead, tanks and armored personel carriers rolling thru the front yard. The ‘press’ prevented from getting closer than a mile away and having their long distance cameras shut down when the feds discovered they were being televised.
Now that is ‘completely and utterly irrational’ and only a fool would be insane enough to try and convince herself/himself that it could not happen again.
In a confrontation with the governement if manipulation and intimidation do not work those who wield the reins of power will resort to force, even violent deadly force, to command compliance.
Al Armendariz, former head of the Dallas EPA, office said in 2010 that his methods for dealing with non-compliant oil and gas companies were “like when the Romans conquered the villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into little villages in Turkish towns and they’d find the first five guys they saw and crucify them.”
These are the same progressive punks who remorselessly continue the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of pre-natal children in this country every year. The same sophisticated barbarians who refuse to condemn forced abortions in China or sex selection abortions at home.
Your equivocations are absurd.
You are as culpable as they are.
If you lhad ived in the south in the early 1900’s you would have found some way to make the lynching and burnings seem festive.
If you had live in Germany in the 30’s you would have glibbly stepped over or walked around the corpses of the dead Jews and complained about the litter in the streets and bragged on the shiny new lamp posts.
John Lewandowski,
Don’t let up.
Just gitter done.
Vannah, I truly appreciate your sincerity. Have a great Saturday!
Ex-GOP says:
June 2, 2012 at 9:45 am
Kristen – she said trade missions (she probably went shopping) – here’s the interview. Again, Palin probably is never running for office again, so not worth debating – I’m just contradicting what an earlier poster said:
I guess I’m still having a hard time understanding why this is such a joke to libs when Obama had NO foriegn experience. Did he have experience as an executive of a state with trade missions – to even other states? No. Again, nothing she said was untrue, maybe not put in the best terms, but not untrue. Obama had PLENTY of gaffes but you didn’t hear those on the nightly news. And heck, he was rarely asked a legitimate question about policy or experience – it was all fluff and he still couldn’t get things right. My favorite was the 57 states…and that wasn’t even in response to a question. He came up with that gem all on his own.
BTW – your comment about shopping was just dumb. Not worth debating – just worth making snide comments. Yep, typical.
Ex-GOP says: June 2, 2012 at 10:00 am
“I think his [John’s] dramatic views are an insult to people actually fighting for the gospel (and not a political battle).”
Ex-RINO,
You do not ‘think’. You scheme.
You slither under the truth.
You slither over the truth.
You slither around the truth.
Occasionly you inadvertently bump into the truth, but as soon as you realize the ‘truth’ you duck and cover until the increasingly infrequent moment passes.
You may be ‘insulted’ and ‘offended’ by the truth, but you will not be inconvienenced by it.
Kristin, I can’t remember the article, but it tracked the pre-election articles about Obama in the largest main stream news outlets. The phrase “rock star” was used 19 times!
Basically, many people voted for Obama because he was a CELEBUTANT*. And you know what? We don’t need a useless celebrity in our oval office any longer. We never did.
*celebrity debutant. Y’know, like Pia Zadora or Paris Hilton.
Lrning – First off, I don’t believe using birth control is a sin.
Secondly, the mandate doesn’t make a catholic actually use birth control – there is no forced using of it.
Ken -
I’ve got to be honest – I don’t read your posts anymore. Sorry man.
Kristen – it was a joke to democrats because the whole interview was a joke. Seriously, if I need a good laugh, I pull up a few old favorite you tube videos -
– Charlie bit my finger
– LeRoy Jenkins
– The Sarah Palin interview
Come on – it was great humor. She reads all the newspapers and magazines. She’s close to Russia. Come on, it was great stuff. Just enjoy it, again, she’s never running again, so we can sit back and not worry about it.
bmmg39 says:June 1, 2012 at 8:15 pm “Our genitalia don’t make a difference here”
Nobody has claimed ‘our genitalia’ make a difference in the validity of our comments or observations.
There are some who claim that the gender of the genitalia of the perspective adoptive couples is of no consequence in the discussion of who should or should not be permitted to adopt.
It is not the perspective adptive parents best interests who should be given primary consideration, but the adoptive childs.
In their quest to normalize deviancy there are those who frame the debate in such a way as to equate being an orphan with imminent death by starvation.
Parenthood is not an entitlement.
Adoption is not a life or death issue.
Abortion is.
I think his dramatic views are an insult to people actually fighting for the gospel (and not a political battle).
And I think anyone who waits for stuff to get that bad before they start pointing out where things are going is an idiot. A dangerous idiot, no less, since they are aware of the problem but prefer to nitpick instead of doing anything to try and solve it. Especially in our country where we have the ability to protest, as opposed to many of the places you’re talking about where those Christians did not even have the opportunity to fight for their rights. And you’re angry because you feel a comparison between violation of religious freedom and violation of religious freedom is too extreme.
Are Catholics likely to be dragged out into the street and shot today? No. Could a violent shut-down of non-compliant Catholic facilities be in the future if Obama’s agenda is not stopped? Yes, absolutely. Remember, this is the president who–whatever “reservations” he claims to have had–signed into law the National Defence Authorization Act, which allows US citizens to be detained by the military, indefinitely, without cause. He. Does. Not. Respect. Your. Freedom. And you’re going to sit there and be all, “Calm down. It isn’t that bad yet!” If you wait until it is that bad, you won’t have enough freedom left to protest anymore. Even allowing for John to have overstated his case, he’s still engaging in a far more reasonable and measured response to the situation. When people try and strip away basic, black-letter, First Amendment rights, you’re supposed to get really, stubbornly, intractably angry. Outrage is the logical response to this situation.
Jamie says: June 1, 2012 at 9:26 am Yep, play chicken with them. It will probably work too. The Church runs WAY too many hospitals and it would be a public disgrace for the Gov’t to shut them down.”
Jamie,
Therei s a ‘fatal’ flaw in your logic.
It incorrectly assumes that the progressive humanists primary interest is in protecting and preserving human life.
The vast majority of humanists believe the planet is already overpopulated. Some believe it is over populated by several billion people.
History is repleat with examples of the humanists willingness and abilitity to deliberately kill millions of what they view as surplus/unwanted human mammals.
[Ranchers call it ‘culling’]
But they can’t do it without lying.
Ex-RINO,
Oh my.
You must be under the illusion that I write them exclusively for your benefit or enjoyment.
I find it to be a healthy exercise to deconstuct and identify the falacy and the folly of your perspective.
I have noticed that you seem to prefer the middle of the road as if there is some safety in maintaining the ‘mean’.
I believe you have mistakenly confused the ‘middle of the road’ with the ‘straight and narrow’ path that leads to life.
All the death around you would be a clue that you are wrong.
“I think his dramatic views are an insult to people actually fighting for the gospel (and not a political battle).”
This inanity contains an inherent assumption that one cannot do both effectively at the same time.
It also falsely assumes that proclaiming the gospel and fighting a political battle cannot sometimes be the same thing.
Here is what is disappointing to me. We have countries in which Christians are actually being killed- you know that right? Countries where Christians are actually under attack.
It would be dang hard for a dead Christian to speak out for his rights and defend his faith – you know that right? Should we wait until Christians are actually killed here, too?
I am a Catholic woman who believes in all Church teachings who is also a Catechist for teens. I also work in a public school filled with Democrats and “feminists”.
If you don’t think I’m feeling the hate towards Christians, you are in severe denial. Yes, there are people who don’t think I should be allowed to work in a public school. Dirty looks, sarcasm, being lied about and to, being ignored, hang-up phone calls, talked down to, telling students the Church is a cult, being called un-American and a divider.
If you don’t think the nastiness hasn’t trickled down to children, you are wrong there too. Common sense should tell anyone that we speak out now or it will only gets worse. Unfortunately, some of those who are the nastiest also consider themselves Christian.
Here is what is disappointing to me, Ex-GOP: You.
Wow, this post really got everyone going. I’ll just make my requisite I’m sick of the anti-gay suff comment and be on my way.
I’m sick of all the anti-gay stuff.
Kristen – she said trade missions (she probably went shopping)
Flippin’ sexists. Maybe you should go watch a football game or work on a vehicle of some sort, Ex-RINO, and leave the politics to the thinking people. Tell your wife I said “Hello! Now get in the kitchen and make your husband a sandwich.”
Vannah,
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is no such thing as a free lunch. These are two important things you need to learn that they have not taught you in Reasoning and Critical Thinking.
Hans,
Thank you.
John,
It is true that heterosexual couples may also practice perverse sexual acts but nobody is asking us to legitimize and sanctify them.
Ever heard of a little thing called “marriage”?
”Yes, there are people who don’t think I should be allowed to work in a public school. Dirty looks, sarcasm, being lied about and to, being ignored, hang-up phone calls, talked down to, telling students the Church is a cult, being called un-American and a divider.”
Wow, all this just because you’re Catholic? I didn’t realize Catholics were still a group actively discriminated against in this country (other than by the government). I learned something new today.
Ex-GOP says: First off, I don’t believe using birth control is a sin.
Why should you have to believe birth control and sterilization are sins before you would recognize that this has been the teaching of the Catholic Church forever?
Ex-GOP says: Secondly, the mandate doesn’t make a catholic actually use birth control – there is no forced using of it.
Sorry, but providing for the immoral activities of others while personally abstaining from them makes someone a hypocrite. When providing for those immoral activities is government mandated, it tramples religious freedom. The fact that you, after months of discussion about it, still cannot recognize how this mandate tramples religious freedom is just sad.
Ex-GOP says: June 2, 2012 at 11:11 am “Seriously, if I need a good laugh, I pull up a few old favorite you tube videos - ”
Ex-RINO,
I too appreciate good humor.
I even appreciate sharp wit when it is my ox that is being gored. Trudeau and ‘Doonsbury’ come to mind.
I could even appreciate Tina Fey’s channeling Sarah Palin. Classic!
But when I need a goold laugh I return to Nancy Pelosi trying to re-call what she did not know and when she did not know concerning the CIA’s use of waterboarding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UntWCssx5u0
The other bimbo who is always good for kneeslapping, peeing in your pants belly laugh is Maxine Waters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU
The word which she was seeking for so desperately in the little used thing that passes for her brain was ‘nationalize’.
This leftist loon was threatening to nationalize’ the ‘oil companies’ if they did not reduce the price of gasoline.
It is no mere coincidence that both of these liberal beauties were from the left coast bastion of California and one them was the ‘madamn speaker’ of the House of Representatives of the United States of America.
That means a majority of her liberal democRAT colleagues thought she was the one person most qualified to speak for them, and by extension, all of us.
That says more about their lack of judgement than it does hers.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
x,
The middle of the road to hell is paved with a lot of road pizzas.
Just ask Ex-RINO.
Why should you have to believe birth control and sterilization are sins before you would recognize that this has been the teaching of the Catholic Church forever?
Because Ex-RINO is inherently self-centered to a fault, and if something doesn’t immediately impact him, he doesn’t care. That’s why he’s willing to vote for people who are going to make certain that abortion remains legal just because they promise him free stuff. It’s why he happily votes for people who will make certain the nation gets torn down with overwhelming debt just because he’s being promised healthcare.
I would urge a few of you to take a good hard look in the mirror. It is really sad to me that, when you see somebody’s Christianity that doesn’t look just like yours, you get so hateful and angry.
Why is there such anger on the hard right these days? Why can’t you even logically, with a level head about you, debate topics? Why, when even questioned about something, do you resort to name calling, angry phrases, putting people in boxes, and questioning their faith in general?
On the subject of this posting – my summation:
– I don’t see us near to a day when armies are going to trample protesters in front of catholic organizations, as John has said.
– I realize that a mandate might violate the religious liberties of churches, which is why I think it is good for that exemption.
– I don’t believe Notre Dame is a church. Neither do I believe a hospital is a church. People disagree with me on this, and you have the right to disagree. Getting angry enough to call names says more about you then it does about me.
– I don’t buy the slippery slope argument as much as some of you folks buy it. Many states have had this mandate for a long time (to a lesser extent), and I believe those citizens are still able to freely worship and assemble.
– Praxedes – the Lord is truly blessing you if you are being persecuted for your faith – you should rejoice and we should all rejoice with you.
– Lrning – I’m not catholic – I go to a non-denominational church. Most denominations don’t believe birth control is a sin. Catholics do, but the majority of individual catholics don’t seem to. The only point I’m making in this is, don’t be shocked when somebody who loves Christ says they don’t believe it is a sin. I don’t believe it is a fundamental issue to the salvation of an individual, and believe two Christians can disagree on it. If you, in your life, feel that Christ is urging you not to use birth control, then I pray that you yield to Christ’s urging.
Lrning – under your argument, wouldn’t the Catholic church have to fire anybody that uses birth control, even on their own dollar, as the employment of that person is providing them a means to sin?
EX-GOP says:
Kristen – it was a joke to democrats because the whole interview was a joke.
I agree the whole interview was a joke. It was a joke because no matter what Palin said it was going to be misconstrued to make her look bad. By the time the newspaper question was asked any rational person could see Palin was exhausted by the nonsense questions she was being asked. She couldn’t exactly say “F*** off Katie” (though I would have LOVED to have seen that.) Which Federalist Paper was your favorite? Come on. Obama was a constitutional lawyer and never read the constitution! Why wasn’t see being asked how she turned around the state of Alaska and what policies that she enacted could be put to bigger use for the country as a whole? Because the sole purpose of the interview was to berate her.
Besides, I don’t know anyone who actually reads newspapers anymore – and my liberal friends never did. All our info comes off the internet, sure sometimes I click a link to a newspaper article but for the most part its other outlets – especially when I am looking for something true and at least somewhat unbiased.
Should she have said the NYT? People would have said “She’s a liar!” The WSJ? “She only reads conservative papers!” The Wasilla Times? (If that is a paper…) “She only reads the local gossip!” There could never be a right answer – she knew that. What is a joke is that liberals are too dumb to see she knew better than to give an answer they wanted.
Couric, from the beginning, didn’t like Palin. You could tell when she was caught making fun of the Palin kids names – names she explained in her book “Going Rogue” that made absolute perfect sense and were sentimental to both of them. But do you think she’d make fun of Paltrow’s daughter Apple? That’ll be the day…
Why would you think I’m shocked when someone says they don’t believe contraception is a sin? I’m not. I’m aware of what other Christian churches teach on the topic.
I’m shocked that someone would actually try to argue that the HHS mandate is not a trampling of religious freedom. And your persistent failure to recognize that individuals have religious freedom, not just churches, is aggravating.
Kristen -
You can make all the arguments you want on that interview – you can say she was unfairly portrayed, or whatever else you want to say.
After that interview and a couple of other times when she couldn’t control the questions and the situation, she was no longer put in those situations. It was clear she couldn’t do the job, and she was a big part of the reason that McCain lost.
The last part is my opinion – the part before that is not – it is well document, and the numbers show it that the McCain campaign couldn’t put her in interviews anymore, and they didn’t.
She’s old news though – she’s not running for anything now, and probably not again. If you love her, that is great – this is a free country.
Lrning -
If Obama mandated birth control hormones needed to be put in the school system’s water, I think that is trampling on individual liberties. If my wife was forced by the government to take them, I believe that would be trampling of individual liberties.
I don’t agree that this case is. If you work at Notre Dame, and you don’t want to take birth control pills, that is in your right.
Lrning – under your argument, wouldn’t the Catholic church have to fire anybody that uses birth control, even on their own dollar, as the employment of that person is providing them a means to sin?
No. The Church does not teach that sinners should be left penniless and poor so they cannot afford to engage in their sinful ways. The Church recognizes free will, don’t you?
Ex-GOP says:
June 2, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Lrning – under your argument, wouldn’t the Catholic church have to fire anybody that uses birth control, even on their own dollar, as the employment of that person is providing them a means to sin?
Um, no. But you already knew that. Are you trying to prove you don’t have a clue. Because, if so, I have to say BRAVO!
If you work at Notre Dame, and you don’t want to take birth control pills, that is in your right.
Of course. If a Catholic owns their own company and provides health care benefits to their employees, they should not be mandated by the government that those benefits must include coverage that violates their religion.
Lrning – then I think you are just getting into an argument of what pocket these dollars come from. For instance, if the government gave a dollar for dollar tax break for individual who bought birth control if their organization didn’t cover it, that would be okay with you?
So Lrning – so then, based on your Notre Dame answer:
– If a JW didn’t want to cover blood transfusions, you would be okay with that?
– If a company owned by an Islamic leader wanted to mandate certain behaviors by their employees, would you be okay with that?
When do you see the rights of an individual being more important than the rights of an employer?
Nope. Not an argument about what pocket. The argument is that people should not be forced to cooperate with actions they believe are evil. Whether as an employee, employer, or not employed.
If the government decided to give a tax break to individuals for the purpose of reimbursing their uncovered birth control expenditures, I would not view that as a violation of religious freedom. I would wonder about the sanity of a government that values elective birth control over other (more important IMO) things. And I would be fighting for other uncovered expenditures to be included in the tax breaks as well.
Why is my comment awaiting moderation? It has no links in it.
Wow, all this just because you’re Catholic? I didn’t realize Catholics were still a group actively discriminated against in this country (other than by the government).
I don’t know how active it is but I certainly feel it in my area. Of course, I’m more outspoken than most too and was called to teach a topic that has little support both in and out of the Church. Who is ‘the government’ made up of?
the Lord is truly blessing you if you are being persecuted for your faith – you should rejoice and we should all rejoice with you.
I agree. The Lord has and is truly blessing me. I do find it hard to rejoice at times, though, but do the best I can to trust in Him. I find it especially hard to rejoice when I see this persecution turned toward children. While you are rejoicing with me, Ex-GOP, don’t forget about defending innocent children from persecution. As a Christian yourself, this should be a no-brainer.
– If a JW didn’t want to cover blood transfusions, you would be okay with that?
Yes. If a JW employer did not want to offer blood transfusions in his/her employees health benefits, and employees were notified of this, I would be okay with that.
– If a company owned by an Islamic leader wanted to mandate certain behaviors by their employees, would you be okay with that?
This is a bit too vague to answer and it’s the opposite of what we’re talking about. We’re talking about government mandating actions of employers, not employers mandating actions of employees. The actions of employees aren’t affected by this mandate at all. Employees are still free, with or without the mandate, to use birth control or get sterilized. To the extent that employers are legally able to mandate behaviors of employees currently, then I am okay with an Islamic owner mandating employee behaviors.
When do you see the rights of an individual being more important than the rights of an employer?
Employers are individuals. Free exercise of religion is for both employer and employee.
Ex-GOP says: June 2, 2012 at 12:59 pm “I would urge a few of you to take a good hard look in the mirror. It is really sad to me that, when you see somebody’s Christianity that doesn’t look just like yours, you get so hateful and angry.”
Ex-RINO,
For the record, and to the popes great relief, I ain’t no catholic.
You do have a gift for obfuscation.
There is nothing in the bible or the constitution that obligates me to pay for someone elses condoms, recreational drugs or cosmetic surgery.
There is nothing in the bible or the constitution that obligates me to pay for someone elses childs food, clothing or shelter.
These things are matters of conscience are motivate by love not by ‘obligation’.
You are advocating using the government to confiscate my wealth to do things which the constitution does not authorize or requrie it to do and in this particular instance specifically prohibits it from doing.
You want to make this about catholics and catholicism, when it is really about conscience and the constitution.
Manipulation is NOT a gift or fruit of the HOLY SPIRIT.
Lrning – and I guess that is where we differ – I believe that, in health care, there are certain things that should be mandated to be covered. While I believe it is debatable whether or not those individual things (like birth control) should be covered or not, I believe certain things should be covered and the employer shouldn’t have the right to overrule just because they don’t like it. So in my examples, for instance the JW, the beliefs of the JW wouldn’t overrule the health care coverage an employee is entitled to.
One more reason I think health care shouldn’t be linked to employment, but that’s another argument.
Ex-GOP says: I believe certain things should be covered and the employer shouldn’t have the right to overrule just because they don’t like it. So in my examples, for instance the JW, the beliefs of the JW wouldn’t overrule the health care coverage an employee is entitled to.
Interesting and illuminating choice of words.
I have no problem with government mandating that certain coverages must apply. When those coverages conflict with free exercise of religion or conscience, that’s when I have a problem with it.
Lrning -
And quite naturally, those times when the two rights conflict will occur – again, on the JW, I believe that if government has a regulation that says healthcare plans are going to cover transfusions in emergency situations, that the JW’s rights would not overrule the rights of all their employees.
Now, with that being said, I’ve already said I agree with churches specifically having exemptions – so I’m talking about broader organizations.
And already, we have this all over the country. A majority of states use taxpayer money for the death penalty, and the DP exists at the federal level as well. Taxpayers pay for war activities whether or not they believe it in it or feel that war violates their beliefs. In many situations in life, we already say that somebody saying they don’t agree with something isn’t enough to warrant opting out of participation.
Interesting and illuminating choice of words.
Agreed. Especially the word ‘entitled.’
In her 2005 book, John Paul the Great, Peggy Noonan says,
“This phenomenon – ‘I don’t belong to a great institution to help others, the great institution exists to help me’ – is not unique to the Catholic church and can be seen now in many institutions. In our public schools, to name one example, there are administrators and teachers who devote most of their time to make sure things go right for them. There is, alas, no union for the kids for whom the schools actually exist. Some school workers forget this, and act as if the schools exist to employ them and see to their rights and needs.”
I would urge a few of you to take a good hard look in the mirror. It is really sad to me that, when you see somebody’s Christianity that doesn’t look just like yours, you get so hateful and angry.
I would urge you, Ex-GOP, to practice what you preach. This is not said with one ounce of hatred. I do say it, however, with a tad bit of anger (righteous, I believe) and with a whole lot of love.
Praxedes -
My statement about looking in the mirror was a reminder for myself as well, yes.
On your first part – I think you are looking and putting too much on the word “entitled”. I feel that the constitutional entitles me to certain rights and ways to live out my faith. I believe that owning a house entitles me to certain things. I know entitle has taken on a bad vibe lately – so let me rephrase a bit – health care shouldn’t be about the whims of one’s boss. Certain regulations of plans should be law, and an employer should not be able to overrule laws meant to protect individuals.
Ex-GOP says: And quite naturally, those times when the two rights conflict will occur..
Sorry, first you’d have to prove that we have a “right” to elective health care services.
I believe everyone has a right to affordable and necessary health care. I don’t believe everyone has a “right” to elective services. If insurance doesn’t cover plastic surgery and a person desires it but cannot afford it, I don’t believe their “rights” are being violated. If a man wants a vasectomy and it isn’t covered by his insurance and he cannot afford it on his own, I don’t believe his “rights” are being violated. If a woman wants to be on birth control pills and her insurance doesn’t cover it and she cannot afford it, I don’t believe her “rights” are being violated.
My statement about looking in the mirror was a reminder for myself as well, yes.
Really??? LOL. You do know that most of us can’t read minds, right?
Actually, I’m just going to call BS on you (it is pretty blatant). You need to man-up, Ex-GOP!
Lrning – and I did say earlier “while I believe it is debatable whether or not those individual things (like birth control) should be covered or not”.
I think it is three separate debates:
1) Can the government mandate certain things to be in health care plans?
2) Are organizations that are an extension of a church the same as a church (in regards to exemptions).
3) Is Birth control, or the other things mandated, a worth mandate?
Prax – I know that I’m not always very loving on this board.
It wasn’t my own statement that pushed me over the edge, no – but as I posted it, I did know that some of my posts cross the line. I try not to personally attack folks – there are some people that, to do that, I just don’t read their posts anymore, nor respond to them. Makes it easier.
Ex-GOP,
I respectfully disagree with you (on the Left side of the middle of the road), and do so without epithets or name-calling - for now. :)
This effort to ghettoize religion within church walls will fail when the Supremes speak in the next few weeks.
Thanks Hans!
Kinda hoping Health Care Reform is repealed when it comes down – the whole law, not just parts. We’ll see.
Ex-RINO
Are them road pizzas getting ripe?
Has the smell of death wafted it’s way up to your nostrils yet?
Or have your olfactors become desensitized to the stench?
I understand that the odor of decomposition is particularly resistent to the olfactors abiltiy to ‘tune it out’.
As the Nazi’s discoverd to their consternation, the difficulty with mass depopulation is solving the logistical problem of dealing with all the dead bodies.
It is especially problematic when the victims get upitty and refuse participate in their own destruction.
I guess thats’s the ‘dead babies r us’ mob prefers abortion over all the other methods of extermination.
No fuss, no muss.
Ex-GOP says: I think it is three separate debates
Fine. I’m focused on one debate. Should the government mandate that individuals and organizations violate their religious beliefs and/or consciences so that everyone can have coverage for certain elective health services? Clearly, I believe the answer is no.
Unfortunately, some of those who are the nastiest also consider themselves Christian.
This is why Christianity itself is a great deterrent to theocracy: sooner or later, you’ll turn on each other. You can’t help yourselves.
“Should the government mandate that individuals and organizations violate their religious beliefs and/or consciences so that everyone can have coverage for certain elective health services?”
To avoid the problem of employers trying to offer selective coverage based on their personal whims, we should just stop tying insurance to employment. Beyond that, objections to the HHS mandate on grounds of religious liberty are absolutely ludicrous. Health insurance isn’t some kind of gratuity, but compensation for an employee’s labor. Employers cannot dictate what people do with the money, goods and services their employees earn.
Some of us can, Lisa; but no matter; besides, most of us Christians don’t desire a theocracy. We just want the babies to live and Obama to leave our freedoms alone.
There are three things.
That which is mandated
That which is chosen
That which is prohibited
Our Bill of Rights legally requires that the federal government not squeeze liberty between the jaws of prohibition and mandate.
Officials are sworn to protect the Constitution, not “the government,” and not their idea of great policies. Those citizens not sworn to do so but acting against tyranny in deference to the Constitution’s claim on tyrants, are heroes. I will not say what their opponents are.
Oh, Paladin, Paladin, why do I not think of you first? *sigh* I’ll get the scooper…
:) You have a good memory, Ninek…
The rest of you: need I repeat myself? :)
Megan says: Employers cannot dictate what people do with the money, goods and services their employees earn.
The protest of the HHS mandate has nothing to do with what employees choose to do with the “money, goods and services” they earn. But I think you already knew that.
What do you think health insurance is, Lrning? A gift?
Prior to ACA, it was one of many employee benefits that companies used attract and retain qualified employees.
Megan -
Amen. The biggest thing the US can do to help with global competition and the mobility of workers (to areas with better jobs for instance) is to stop tying work to insurance.
The quickest way to do this is to repeal health care reform and then, as the current system collapses, pass something better. Unfortunately, if things are repealed, health care gets really ugly (or even uglier) for a while.
To me it seems like people generally don’t take the time to consider WHY exactly the Catholic Church doesn’t want to pay for birth control for others – I don’t mean why they think birth control is wrong, but why they don’t want to pay for something they think is wrong … And it might be obvious to some, but it’s worth emphasizing …
Because sin is serious and they don’t want to sin or cause others to sin, because it has caused the suffering of our Lord, because we trust and show thankfulness for our heavenly Father, because it interferes with our relationship with God of course …
BUT also, that which coincides with all sin … Because they think it is BAD for us, will cause problems and unhappiness for us, will keep us from a blessed life. Thus, in essence, the mandate interferes with Catholic individuals’ ability to care for others in the way they believe is loving and wise. They believe it hurts you, and they neither want you to be hurt, which they cannot legally keep you from doing to yourself by buying birth control yourself, nor want to be the agents of your hurt. Like, thank you for your hard work, I now reward you with what we believe will make you less happy. Abortion- inducing drugs are a whole other story. I am not Catholic, and I am working out where I stand on birth control, but I personally do not buy stuff for people that I think is bad for them, even if they want it. (except through my taxes of course).
Lrning,
We clearly have different definitions of what it means to “pay for” something. Yes, employers coordinate insurance coverage for their employees, but without an employer-based system (which essentially started with wage caps), this service would translate into higher wages. Again, insurance isn’t a gift–it’s part of an employee’s remuneration.
A woman who must purchase birth control out-of-pocket because her employer refuses to offer an insurance plan with BC coverage is paying TWICE: once, for the cost of the product itself, and again, because she’s offering her labor for a service that she can’t use to its fullest extent. And if she has to purchase BC on her own, her employer is still, technically, “facilitating” this sinfulness. Regardless, shouldn’t people be able to exercise free will? Shouldn’t healthcare–whether purchased or covered by insurance–be a private matter, free of the moral intrusion of the HR office?
Megan,
Using health insurance to its fullest extent? That is wrong thinking right there. The people that use health insurance to “its fullest extent” are not healthy. I can’t imagine that anyone would have that as a goal.
You clearly have no concept of what a fringe benefit is.
People are not offered fringe benefits in exchange for their labor. That’s what they get paid wages for. Fringe benefits are offered by employers to attract and retain quality employees. Are you aware that employers do not have to offer any paid vacation time? And it used to be that they didn’t have to offer health insurance. But once they do start offering these & other benefits, they are now governed by various laws and regulations.
Wait a minute; people are paying twice for their elective plastic surgery, since it’s not covered by their insurance which they “paid” for!?! Who knew. Where’s the outrage????
The problem with common sense is that it’s just not very common anymore. . . . .
“People are not offered fringe benefits in exchange for their labor.”
Not directly, no, but there’s a reason why insurance is lumped into the “non-wage compensation category.” It certainly isn’t the gratuity you’re making it out to be. Employers started offering insurance in the first place during WWII because the federal govt. prohibited dramatic wage hikes (it’s also worth noting that as health care costs have increased over the past 20 years, rates of wage increase have generally stagnated). Today, employers get tax breaks for providing insurance, and employees still have to pay premiums. Offering health insurance isn’t some kind of magnanimous gesture on the part of employers–there are costs and benefits involved on both ends of the exchange.
“But once they do start offering these & other benefits, they are now governed by various laws and regulations.”
And for good reason! There have to be limits to intrusions in one’s health affairs. There would be an absolute uproar in these quarters if businesses suddenly took a moral stance against women having, say, more than one child, and decided not to offer pre-natal care beyond the first kid. You’d be forced to do that humiliating dance trying to justify why childbearing, although an elective process, is so fundamental to the human condition that it would be an insult to women to not cover it.
Or what about this? A nice Catholic physician allegedly denies her pt. access to his HIV meds because she’s disgusted by gay sex. Conscience clauses at work, people: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-for-going-against-gods-will-catholic-hospital-denies-gay-man-hiv-meds/legal-issues/2012/06/03/40477
Megan, that story is horrible, but do you really want to face off against us on the topic of conscience clauses? I don’t think forcing nurses to participate in abortions (as they were doing in New Jersey, I believe) is a whole lot better.
Joan,
So before killing babies in the womb was legal, did you support it? Would “breaking the law” in that instance be okay?
Should the bishops advocate breaking the law regarding HHS? YES, AND YOUR FAITHFUL, YOUR *FAITHFUL* WILL STAND BESIDE YOU!!!!
Megan,
As I review this account I see the word “allege” in its various forms time and again.
That would suggest that nothing has been proven. I see nothing about any other side to this story.
Life has taught me never to do things in following order.
1. Jump to conclusions
2. Get all the facts
We saw this in the Trayvon Martin case. Why the video was “proof” Zimmerman was lying. Uh no folks, you have to look at medical records, which in fact backed Zimmerman’s account. We found out 911 tapes were altered. Zimmerman was a “white” Hispanic, who it turns out had a black grandparent. Was the media desperate to create a “racial” incident.
We also had a blogger who claimed a nurse calling in an abortionist saved her life. Medical people on this blog, myself included, maintained this story had more holes than swiss cheese. The hospital had not given their side of the story and were likely constrained by patient confidentiality.
This doesn’t suggest the person in your account or the above mentioned woman were deliberately lying, it suggests that perception is everything. It also suggests there is more than one side to a story and one should avoid jumping to conclusions until they get both sides.
Mary and JDC,
I used the term “allege” purposefully. Nothing has yet been proven, but the situation is plausible. My point still stands: the balance between the patient’s right to care and the provider’s right to abstain from activities he/she deems odious is delicate indeed. But I’m curious: why wouldn’t you have supported the physician in this instance (if this incident did indeed occur)?
Hi Megan,
As I said I want BOTH sides of this issue before I give any opinions or arrive at any conclusions. A “plausible” situation is just that, until shown otherwise.
I used my paycheck to pay for my birth control, like I did my toothpaste, soap, deoderant, shampoo, tampons, etc. Couldn’t personal cleanliness be considered a form of preventitive health care that insurance should subsidize?
How about aspirin, nasal spray, midol, jock spray, athlete foot powder, and lice treatment. Should insurance cover all of this as well?
How about exercise equipment and gym membership? Certainly that could be seen as preventive care.
Oh and cosmetic surgery would do much to enhance my mental health. One surgical procedure is cheaper than ongoing prescriptions for antidepressents.
So tell me Megan, why is birth control the exception? Also, how have women managed for decades to purchase birth control if it is so unreasonably expensive? We are told “millions” of women use contraception. Oh? How pray tell do they manage the cost?
I just found out my daughter’s next round of braces is going to cost over 5600.00. Somebody ought to pay for that.
“ why wouldn’t you have supported the physician in this instance (if this incident did indeed occur)?”
A reasonable question. Personally, I think there should be a default presumption that a provider does not have to participate in any activity they find objectionable. However, this can be overridden in cases where the harm from doing so is very significant. In this case, being denied HIV medication could lead directly to a worsening of the patient’s condition and even death. I cannot support a physician’s decision to do allow such a thing and it in fact and violates the very principles of medicine. In most examples of conscience clause issues (i.e. pharmacists who don’t want to dispense contraceptives) the patient is merely inconvenienced and will a) not die from being denied what they are seeking and b) probably just take their business elsewhere. In this cases, no harm is caused that is significant enough to warrant forcing a provider to do something that violates their conscience.
“So tell me Megan, why is birth control the exception?”
I just had to step back and laugh that we’re having this conversation in the 21st century. Are you seriously a healthcare professional? Sex is a fundamental aspect of most adult relationships. Not everybody wants to sign up for the physical, mental, and emotional impact of a pregnancy every time they have intercourse. And, of course, birth control is a form of MEDICATION that requires physician approval for use–unlike a tampon or a gym membership. Come, now. Be reasonable. If preventing a pregnancy is so elective, then why should insurance subsidize childbearing through prenatal care?
“I just found out my daughter’s next round of braces is going to cost over 5600.00.”
For your family’s sake, I hope you have dental insurance that will partially cover the cost of the procedure–much as, by paying a premium and deductible, I expect to access affordable birth control through my insurance plan.
“Personally, I think there should be a default presumption that a provider does not have to participate in any activity they find objectionable.”
I can accept this rule, and I wouldn’t expect a pro-life physician to perform an abortion. But we run into problems when the care isn’t being directly provided, or the objectionable activity took place sometime in the past (in this case, the gay sex). What does “particpate” mean in these instances?
“Personally, I think there should be a default presumption that a provider does not have to participate in any activity they find objectionable.”
This I agree with. And it should be backed up with a policy in place so that patients can still get the care they require. This isn’t a conscience clause case. A conscience clause protects medical professionals from having to give care they find morally objectionable. How would administering HIV meds be morally objectionable? If the account in that article is true, it sounds like malpractice. So why not sue the doctor?
Although, I have to say that something doesn’t smell right about that article. If a mental health patient is in the hospital for 3 days and also has HIV, are we supposed to believe that one child & adolescent psychiatrist is the only doctor he sees? “After this consultation, no nurse or doctor came to see Simoes” No nurse or doctor comes to take care of him in all that time? Even those “confined to the hospital’s mental health wing” have nurses caring for them and typically multiple hospital personnel over the various shift changes.
Megan,
When you finish laughing kindly do what I asked you to and that is tell me why birth control is the exception.
Hygiene and toileting are certainly essential aspects of our lives. So does insurance pay my water bill, buy soap, and provide toilet paper? Poor hygiene can result in serious health issues and I certainly don’t like to care for people suffering the consequences of poor hygiene. If you ever cared for such persons you would see what I mean. They can be horrendous and result in the need for extensive medical care. So tell me why insurance companies shouldn’t provide us with our hygiene needs? I mean, they can run up quite a bill every month.
Oh birth control requires a doctor’s prescription. So freaking go to the doctor and get it!
I went to the doctor and paid for it for years and it never occured to me that anyone owed me. Ya see Megan, that’s what our paychecks were for. Paychecks also helped pay for my husband’s diabetic supplies. Pain prescriptions when needed. Antibiotic prescriptions when needed.
Also tell me how “millions” of women are able to afford birth control and have been able to for decades. I know my mother started using it during WW2, and it was nothing new then.
Hi Lrng 3:48PM
Something does indeed smell funny. You raise an excellent point I’m embarassed not to have caught. The patient was there for 3 days and NO nurse or doctor came to see this patient after the initial consult ? Certainly psychiatric patients are a little more closely supervised than this! So if we were to review the patient’s records, there would be no nurse’s notes of that patient for 3 days and nights?
Maybe we should just stick to my suggestion that all the facts are in and the records reviewed before we jump to any conclusions here.
Megan,
I can get my paycheck from my employer on Friday afternoon and Friday night go buy a gram of coke. My employer is not in any way responsible or facilitating my irresponsible behavior.
“Ya see Megan, that’s what our paychecks were for.”
So you’re oppposed to health insurance in general, is that it? You think we should do away with insurance altogether and implement a kind of direct fee-for-service system? And why, pray tell, if birth control is such a frivolous thing, would any insurance company need to cover prenatal care?
“My employer is not in any way responsible or facilitating my irresponsible behavior.”
Right, same as my employer having no direct responsibility for my decision to use my health insurance to cover one specific health expense.
Megan,
Not at all, I support health insurance. I also think people have to take some responsibility for paying their own way. Health insurance doesn’t cover cosmetic procedures, yet our local costmetic surgeons aren’t going broke. Amazing how people can come with with the several thousands needed for a facelift, breast enhancement, or tummy tuck.
Actually it was fee for service at one time, and my working single mother managed to pay for her children’s health and dental care. Insurance was just for catastrophic coverage, you paid everything else. Prices stayed in check because of competition and ability to pay.
For instance, a hotel does not charge $2500/nite and expect to stay in business, unless of course it caters to extremely wealthy clientele.
Third party payment, i.e. insurance, medicare, and medicaid, jacked up medical costs.
I don’t find birth control any more frivolous than running water, soap, aspirin, tampons, Depends,…or toilet paper. Is it too much to expect people to pay for any of this?
One could argue they are all essential to health and hygiene. I told you the medical consequences and expenses of people not practicing good hygienic health. Believe me they ain’t pretty. So…when will insurance companies start coughing up?
And why, pray tell, if birth control is such a frivolous thing, would any insurance company need to cover prenatal care?
Huh? Is prenatal care considered elective now?
“I also think people have to take some responsibility for paying their own way.”
Sure. So insurance companies should drop coverage for Type II diabetes meds. People need to take more responsibility for their diets, no? And while we’re at it, it seems unfair that I’m subsidizing other women to have babies with my insurance plan. Having kids is entirely elective–they should pay for it themselves!
Megan,
Yes, frankly people do indeed need to take more responsibility for their diets. They may or may not pay for the drugs, depending on the policy and the choice of the insured. Come to think of it, my husband was initially on Type 2 Meds, and we paid for them. His condition then worsened to Type 1.
Well I supposed it isn’t fair you subsidize treatment for obesity, smoking, alcohol, and drug related problems either. Drinking, smoking, abusing drugs, and overeating are elective as well. At least people started the problem themselves, which may have or have not led to addiction.You belong to an insurance pool, that’s what you do.
“Having kids is entirely elective”
Please explain. Unplanned (unelected) pregnancies don’t exist? A rape victim that gets pregnant elected to get pregnant? Or is this “having kids is entirely elective” scenario only applicable when abortion is legal? Because by not having an elective abortion you elected to have a kid? Or is this just some wacky pro-choice “slut shaming” thing ya got going on here?
Hi, Megan sorry it took me so long to get back to this, but I’ve been busy.
“But we run into problems when the care isn’t being directly provided, or the objectionable activity took place sometime in the past (in this case, the gay sex). What does “particpate” mean in these instances? ”
True, it’s not always so cut and dry that it would fit neatly into a general rule. I wouldn’t want to make a judgement about a case care isn’t being directly provided without more specific knowledge, as I’m not sure exactly what that means (does that refer back to the insurance issue, perhaps?). I think that when the objectionable activity took place in the past, any claim to a right to refuse service is kind of silly (and, depending on the circumstances, cruel). One would not argue that treating those injured in an accident caused by drunk driving is somehow participating in or condoning drunk driving (even if the person you’re treating was the driver). Likewise, to claim administering treatment for a disease caught from gay sex is the same as participating in gay sex is absolutely insane. All that one would be participating in is the treatment of an illness, which is one of the main points of the medical profession. To sum up, I think that conscience objections can only be legitimately raised raised about the activity the practitioner is being requested to do, not anything the patient has done.