PDA

View Full Version : Catholic broadcaster in Alabama sues over Obama policy



Eric Johnson
02-09-2012, 07:21 PM
I have the complaint that was filed today in this suit. If you want it, PM me with your email address and I'll send it. It's not too long (~170kb) and it raises some interesting issues in this dispute.

Eric

**********
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20120209/NEWS/120209008/Catholic-broadcaster-Alabama-sues-over-Obama-policy-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

http://tinyurl.com/89mh9qh

BIRMINGHAM — A Roman Catholic broadcasting network based in Alabama is suing the Obama administration overs its new policy on birth control funding.

EWTN Global Catholic Network filed suit Thursday in Birmingham over the rules. Network president Michael Warsaw says the lawsuit is meant to defend Catholics and others from being forced to fund contraception.

- 30 -

Buzz
02-09-2012, 07:57 PM
Eric, are you Catholic?

Eric Johnson
02-09-2012, 09:45 PM
No. Why do you ask?

Eric

Gerry Clinchy
02-09-2012, 09:52 PM
I have the complaint that was filed today in this suit. If you want it, PM me with your email address and I'll send it. It's not too long (~170kb) and it raises some interesting issues in this dispute.

Eric


Could you summarize?

road kill
02-10-2012, 05:14 AM
I don't think one needs to be a Catholic to be disturbed by the trampeling of the 1st amendment.:(



RK

Raymond Little
02-10-2012, 07:45 AM
Look for DOJ to start working on dismantling the tax exempt status of churches next term if obammer is reelected.

Gerry Clinchy
02-10-2012, 09:27 AM
If this is solved by "waiver", there could end up being a lot more of them.

What of the small business owner who is RC or is opposed to abortion or the morning after pill? (I don't think there are many, outside of RCs, that are opposed to birth control). Should such an employer not also have the right to a waiver? What if there are atheists opposed to abortion? We go to great lengths to protect the rights of atheists today.

Conscientious objectors are allowed to serve in the military in non-combat positions ... even if the tenet is a personal "religious" conviction that is not particularly espoused by the church they belong to. Would that not be similar to an employer offering health care that lacks the coverage for abortion or morning-after pill?

If Fed funds are not to be used for abortion, then what of the Fed funds that go toward health care subsidies that DO cover abortions? Whether one is in favor or opposed to abortion, does it make sense to have two laws juxtaposed?

The good news is that the Army admitted that its dictum for the RC chaplains was a mistake. Other branches of the military did not issue such orders. It does, however, give pause to how a govt department could interfere with a very basic liberty of free speech. Suppose a Congressional chaplain were thusly instructed?

Too bad Congress followed Pelosi's line of thinking about passing the law to find out what it was all about. Might have been better to figure out what they were doing first.

road kill
02-10-2012, 09:34 AM
If this is solved by "waiver", there could end up being a lot more of them.

What of the small business owner who is RC or is opposed to abortion or the morning after pill? (I don't think there are many, outside of RCs, that are opposed to birth control). Should such an employer not also have the right to a waiver? What if there are atheists opposed to abortion? We go to great lengths to protect the rights of atheists today.

Conscientious objectors are allowed to serve in the military in non-combat positions ... even if the tenet is a personal "religious" conviction that is not particularly espoused by the church they belong to. Would that not be similar to an employer offering health care that lacks the coverage for abortion or morning-after pill?

If Fed funds are not to be used for abortion, then what of the Fed funds that go toward health care subsidies that DO cover abortions? Whether one is in favor or opposed to abortion, does it make sense to have two laws juxtaposed?

The good news is that the Army admitted that its dictum for the RC chaplains was a mistake. Other branches of the military did not issue such orders. It does, however, give pause to how a govt department could interfere with a very basic liberty of free speech. Suppose a Congressional chaplain were thusly instructed?

Too bad Congress followed Pelosi's line of thinking about passing the law to find out what it was all about. Might have been better to figure out what they were doing first.

Well, we didn't and that is why this guy has got to go!!!
Because a "waiver" is only a postponement of the inevitable, Gov't controlled ABORTION!!

And that will back fire on a lot of people who have knee-jerk emotional attachments to issue.
I wonder how they will feel when the panel determines that this baby may have health issues and must be aborted.
You know, to save $$ and the greater good.

The whole Obama care package has to go.


RK

Eric Johnson
02-10-2012, 09:47 AM
The case is EWTN v. Kathleen Sibelius, et al. It was filed in the Northern District of Alabama and the case number is 12-cv-00501-SLB if you have access to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records).

I don't know if you've ever worked with a Complaint document. In this one there are 195 paragraphs and each sets out some aspect of the case theory. To each of the 195 paragraphs, the defendents will file a response of some sort even if it is simply "Denied."

I've not read the whole complaint but paragraph 7. seems to hold the jist of the case so far as I've read....in all the thousands of waivers issued so far, not one of them has recognized a religious issue though many of them are along the lines of political favors.

***
7. The Defendants’ refusal to accommodate conscience is also highly selective. A
patchwork of seemingly arbitrary exemptions from the Affordable Care Act announces that
Defendants do not believe every insurance plan in the country need cover these services. For instance, Defendants have issued thousands of waivers from the Affordable Care Act altogether for groups, such as many large corporations, purely for reasons of commercial convenience. Other exemptions have been awarded based on how old a plan is or how large an employer is. Missing, however, is any exemption for employers whose religious consciences instruct them that certain mandated services are ethically repugnant. In other words, the Defendants’ pattern of exemptions reveals a massive blind spot for groups exercising their fundamental First Amendment freedoms.
****

Eric

Buzz
02-10-2012, 10:20 AM
No. Why do you ask?

Eric

Just curious. I am no expert, but I wonder what religions besides the Catholic Church is against birth control.

You would think from the fallout that there was a law requiring Catholics to use birth control, when all it amounts to is insurance companies being required to cover birth control costs to those who wish to use it.

We are upset at all those poor folks having babies that need support of social services, but then we are dead set against making birth control available and affordable to them. I realize that the best form of birth control is abstinence, but I hope we can agree that with such strong natural instinct in all God's creatures, that just isn't going to happen.

I understand the Church not wanting to offer health insurance policies that include coverage for birth control, but I don't see this as a religious freedom issue, and I have no idea what makes it a first amendment issue as I've heard some assert.

I grew up in a family of practicing Catholics. I attended Catholic School from 3rd grade on through 12th. In college I belonged to a Catholic Fraternity. I don't know of a single fraternity brother who ever got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and believe me, those Catholic Boys were not exactly free of the desires that nature gave them.

road kill
02-10-2012, 10:38 AM
Just curious. I am no expert, but I wonder what religions besides the Catholic Church is against birth control.

You would think from the fallout that there was a law requiring Catholics to use birth control, when all it amounts to is insurance companies being required to cover birth control costs to those who wish to use it.

We are upset at all those poor folks having babies that need support of social services, but then we are dead set against making birth control available and affordable to them. No we are not, we are dead set against the Government telling the Church (and it's affiliates) what to do against thier beliefs. That would be like telling planned Parenthood we will no longer GIVE them money to perform abortions I realize that the best form of birth control is abstinence, but I hope we can agree that with such strong natural instinct in all God's creatures, that just isn't going to happen.

I understand the Church not wanting to offer health insurance policies that include coverage for birth control, but I don't see this as a religious freedom issue, and I have no idea what makes it a first amendment issue as I've heard some assert.

I grew up in a family of practicing Catholics. I attended Catholic School from 3rd grade on through 12th. In college I belonged to a Catholic Fraternity. I don't know of a single fraternity brother who ever got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and believe me, those Catholic Boys were not exactly free of the desires that nature gave them.
My response in blue.

RK

JDogger
02-10-2012, 10:47 AM
That would be like telling planned Parenthood we will no longer GIVE them money to perform abortions



My response in blue.

RK

Hyde amendment ring a bell?

JD

road kill
02-10-2012, 10:58 AM
That would be like telling planned Parenthood we will no longer GIVE them money to perform abortions




Hyde amendment ring a bell?

JD

To me, YES, to Planned Parenthood, not so much.

But I was refferring to the SGK foundation and the ensueing uproar when the cut DONATIONS!!
Forgotten in that 1 sided tantrum was the fact that anyone who has been through the cancer wars KNOWS what birth control pills are a contributing factor to cancer in women.
Good cause to NOT contribute, since it is part of the source of the very thing your fighting.

Oh well......I'm sure I make NO sense to anyone.:rolleyes:

RK

Eric Johnson
02-10-2012, 11:16 AM
You would think from the fallout that there was a law requiring Catholics to use birth control, when all it amounts to is insurance companies being required to cover birth control costs to those who wish to use it.


I suspect the this is not exactly all of the issue. The Catholic organizations are forced to pay the insurance firms for services which are against their teachings. This is true whether the organization is a social services agency which may or may not employ a 100% Catholic staff or say an order with 100% religious personnel on the staff. This contrasts with all of the waivers that have been given not for First Amendment issues but purely for economic or political reasons.

I have to read the complaint in further detail.

The President is (was?) supposed to address this issue today but the advance men were saying that not every item would be seen favorably by church leaders.

Eric

Gerry Clinchy
02-10-2012, 11:51 AM
I'd guess that abortion and morning-after pill are the items of biggest concern to RCs .. and to others of other denominations.

Most RCs I have known did not feel using birth control pills offended their religious conscience ... but abortion was a totally different issue of religious belief; even though the official RC tenets include birth control as well. I suppose there are some RCs who actually adhere to that tenet, even if many don't.

If I recall, one of the big issues in Obamacare was the subsidizing of abortions. By providing Fed subsidies to individuals for health care plans that provide for abortions, isn't that the same as directly subsidizing abortions.

Again, it does not matter how you or I feel on the issue of abortions, the crux of the issue is that some DO have a religious basis for being against abortion. And for the RC church, birth control also falls into a religious tenet.

The larger issue is also that other denominations may also be opposed to abortion; or even some atheists :-) So, isn't the basic premise that the govt shouldn't be making laws that interfere with the freedom of religious belief ... as long as that belief does not interfere with someone else's unalienable rights?

Gerry Clinchy
02-10-2012, 03:17 PM
The change would allow religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptive care. It would also require insurers to offer a plan that does not include contraceptive care in their contracts with nonprofit religious groups. But the insurers would be required to make contraception available free of charge to women anyway.


I'm not sure how the law provides for the insurors to be required to provide a free service for some ... and not for all. Why not save Medicaid some bucks and have insurors provide Medicaid with "free" contraception? Why not have the pharmaceutical companies provide it free? Was there anything in the law that said a corporate entity would have to provide anything "free"? Somehow that doesn't seem to be a very good precedent to set either.

Maybe the fears about bureaucratic "interpretation" of this law were valid. In this case, the bureaucrat appears to be the POTUS himself?

Gerry Clinchy
02-12-2012, 08:57 PM
I keep thinking about this idea that the modified rule for this controversy ends up with the insurors being required to provide "free" birth control. How can the govt force a private sector company to give ANYthing away free?

It would be more obvious, if the policy said that the pharmaceutical companies would have to provide these items free to those employees who work for these employers. After all, these items are least costly for the pharma companies. Compelling insurors to give them free means that the insurors are also absorbing the cost of the product plus markups of the pharma company & the retailer of the items.

Hmmm ... I wonder under what circumstances the POTUS could compel a farmer to give food free to someone who happens to need it. After all, you need food at least as much as you need contraceptives. No need for food stamps. Cut out the overhead. Just tell grocery stores to give food free to the people who have the right ID card?

Gerry Clinchy
02-13-2012, 07:40 PM
How cool is this? A White House staff member said that the health plans with free contraception are actually cheaper than those that include contraception. Hmmm ... logically, maybe that's because it costs the insurance companies less if they give away contraception v. having to pay for a pregnancy.

So why doesn't everybody get it free then? Why doesn't Medicaid get it free? That would kill two birds with one stone?

Jason Glavich
02-14-2012, 06:54 AM
How cool is this? A White House staff member said that the health plans with free contraception are actually cheaper than those that include contraception. Hmmm ... logically, maybe that's because it costs the insurance companies less if they give away contraception v. having to pay for a pregnancy.

So why doesn't everybody get it free then? Why doesn't Medicaid get it free? That would kill two birds with one stone?

Sterilization will also be covered, it is 100% effective! Birth control is not, between forgetting pills, or missing shots, or implants they are not always effective.

This mandates are the source of an issue. The Fed wants to require exactly what somebody buys. That is like telling me I have to by Mac and cheese if I want steak, or a ford if I want a dodge.

They went one step further and said, you will have a plan that covers this and that for free even if it goes against your beliefs. If I remember correctly the Amish were given a full waiver when it comes to the new healthcare rules.

If you are going to say I must buy something let me choose what that something is, if I do not need a plan that covers BC then I should not need to buy one. The Church should not have to have a plan that covers things they do not endorse or want.

Btw I was only quoting you because I saw that same white house guy say that and did not feel like typing it myself. :)

Gerry Clinchy
02-14-2012, 11:03 AM
Agree with you very much, Jason, about the whole principle of coercing someone to buy something they don't need. What if someone is already sterile? They still have to buy the total product. Basically, so that they can help pay for the people who need the product.

Wonder if Christian Scientists are also "waived" from Obamacare?

I'm also still very concerned with the precedent of the govt compelling a private company to give away a product for free. Can't understand why nobody in media or elsewhere has noted that! That seems to be the ultimate in thievery.

The ultimate in arrogance is that the WH says that this is now "case closed". That is our compromise, take it or leave it. Yup, sure is the way to bring people together.

Jason Glavich
02-14-2012, 12:19 PM
Agree with you very much, Jason, about the whole principle of coercing someone to buy something they don't need. What if someone is already sterile? They still have to buy the total product. Basically, so that they can help pay for the people who need the product.

Wonder if Christian Scientists are also "waived" from Obamacare?

I'm also still very concerned with the precedent of the govt compelling a private company to give away a product for free. Can't understand why nobody in media or elsewhere has noted that! That seems to be the ultimate in thievery.

The ultimate in arrogance is that the WH says that this is now "case closed". That is our compromise, take it or leave it. Yup, sure is the way to bring people together.

They see it as it is not being given for free. See their view is currently you have insurance that covers these items, with a copay and your regular premiums you get the product. Now you will get it without a copay, but your premium is still paying for it, so it is not making them give it for free. The downside is you will still pay for appt to get the Rx, and the follow up for it as well. What they do not tell you is it is not 100% to prevent follow on costs, there may be more costs because people will take BC and go have unprotected sex and get an STD and they will still pay for more follow on care. BC is used as a license to um.....well....nvm. Not in all cases but in many. And it still fails, just take an antibitic while on it and see if it works. Or miss a pill, or get knocked up before you have taken it for 30days, or just be that .1% that it fails on. The percentage is much higher if you count in the human factor, forgetting etc.

Forcing anyone to buy anything is bad.

ARay11
02-14-2012, 12:48 PM
I'm also still very concerned with the precedent of the govt compelling a private company to give away a product for free. Can't understand why nobody in media or elsewhere has noted that! That seems to be the ultimate in thievery.

I think the ultimate theft is:

OUR TAX dollars bailed out (BOUGHT) the insurance company. (so are they really a private company at this point?)

Now, we are required to send them MORE money (premiums) and we DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.

Insurance Co will not complain...they're on the receiving end of this, so they turn a blind eye to the real issues. "Who cares what's right/wrong..just send more money"

In my opinion..

It wasnt just the Church whose rights have been mangled,trampled,drowned,burned, and completely obliterated.
Ours were too.

road kill
02-14-2012, 12:52 PM
Question.


Is Obama (the Federal Gov't.) telling insurance companies what to provide and what to charge for it socialized medicine by definition?


If not, spin it for me??:cool:

Standing by..........


RK

Gerry Clinchy
02-16-2012, 11:24 AM
Most don't care much for Karl Rove, but he just happens to be the messenger in this case.




What sets this president apart is how eager he is to fund his schemes outside the normal appropriations process.


Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/margaret-thatcher.htm#r_src=ramp) once said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you "run out of other people's money." And it's not just tax dollars she was talking about, as the Obama presidency has shown.


Take the decision to force Catholic institutions to provide health-insurance coverage for sterilization, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. When this decision caused an outcry, Mr. Obama offered the following compromise: Insurance companies will be ordered to provide such coverage "free" to employees of Catholic churches and organizations.


But of course, this coverage won't be free. Insurance companies will pass the cost on to policyholders, including those same Catholic institutions. In short, Other People's Money will be used.


Another example: To appear empathetic about foreclosures, the Obama administration pressured five banks to cough up $25 billion—$3 billion to the federal and state governments, and nearly $22 billion for payments to people foreclosed upon and to reduce the principal of mortgages with balances greater than the home's current value.


This will bail out no more than 10% of homeowners whose mortgages are underwater, according to an estimate by Chris Papagianis of the nonpartisan policy-research institute e21, who notes there is roughly $700 billion in residential negative equity across the country.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/16/president-obama-and-your-money/#ixzz1mZ5hAh6i


The bolding is mine.


One of the fears expressed early on with Obamacare was how much financial power would be vested in the laws rules and regulations when they were finally made into law. We're beginning to see this evolve on many fronts. I see it evolving into a money-pit that was far beyond the ability of the CBO to even imagine. We just have to look at Medicare to get an idea of where this can end up.


The controversy right now has focused on contraception because that is the most popular issue to make hay from. Most people, even RCs, really don't have a huge problem with contraception; even though it's still not constitutional to interfere with the religious beliefs of those who do feel contraception is counter to their beliefs. The "abortion-inducing" drugs & sterilization would be harder for the govt to defend. The media has conveniently side-stepped those two. I actually wonder why some other religious groups have been silent on those two items.


After the inadequacies of the other mortgage relief programs that have been put in place, I wonder how fairly they will choose which 10% of the homeowners get bailed out with the bank's money? It's also been theorized that these dollars will simply be used to fund the impending shortfall for FHA (along with the new fee on FHA mortgages). Whether one agrees with the whole concept of FHA mortgages or not, it's still a shell game of redistributing income.


I have no sympathy for the greedy banks who created and profited from the "bubble". People who were the designers of that sleight of hand should be in jail, and their assets lawfully confiscated as was done with Madoff. OTOH, I'm not comfortable with the govt picking and choosing who will be the beneficiaries of this new form of "bail out".


The way banks are handling short sales and foreclosures is horrible. I do wonder if their idea is to try to ride out this housing market decline, and then grab these properties when values are on the rebound. While the banks stall on processing short sales, they are leaving both homebuyers and homeowners in limbo, and a goodly part of the inventory will begin to decay as well.


[/color]

road kill
02-16-2012, 02:46 PM
From the National Review;



Obama, Athanasius, and the Bishops
By William F. Gavin
February 15, 2012 4:09 P.M.
All I have is a voice to undo the folded lie. . .

— W. H. Auden, “September 1, 1939”

Until President Obama proclaimed his “accommodation” last week, I never was certain what Auden meant by “folded lie.” But suddenly there it was. To fold is “to bend over or double up so that one part lies on the other part.” The obviously exasperated president didn’t even bother to come up with a good cover story. (One could almost hear him say, “Who will free me from these turbulent bishops?”) The new lie (“accommodation”) was hastily folded over the old lie (“this is all about a woman’s reproductive freedom, and it won’t hurt your conscience a bit”). So he bent over and then doubled up two lies, and then blamed Republicans for making the HHS diktat a “wedge issue.” And so, petulantly, angry at having to tell yet another whopper to those oafs clinging to their God and their guns, he began a new era in American politics.

This is indeed something new, although it resembles something very old. The radical Left, in every country in which it has gained power or influence, ever since the French Revolution, has wanted to dismantle, destroy, marginalize, or make impotent the Roman Catholic Church, which, at its best, has always stood athwart Progress (not “progress”) shouting “Stop!” Unlike many of my friends, I have never believed Obama is a Socialist or a radical or even a left-winger. He is, instead, a classic political adventurer, a true believer only in the Imperial Self, unhindered by doctrine or dogma, willing to channel the myths of whatever ideological fantasy allows him to gain power and then hold it. He chose the statist myths that appeal to the Left because they are now, as they have always been, no matter what rhetoric is chosen to disguise the fact, about the will to political power through control of or influence over the coercive power of the state. All in a good cause, all for progress and, er, progress, y’know, but still, one can’t do good unless one has, er, state power.

But Obama has been until now careful to disguise his contempt for those who disagree with him. His frequent calls for “civility” have always smacked of the disdain the Left feels for the great unwashed: One is polite, one tries to be civil, but, really, who are these people?

But now, in a moment of breathtaking, brazen over-reach, he finds himself in a fight he never believed would take place. Who, after all, would have believed the Catholic bishops, old, celibate men, their authority weakened by the manner in which they dealt with the homosexual sex scandal, scorned by the major media, not listened to by the vast majority of Catholics concerning the church teaching on contraception — who could imagine that these . . . these . . . people . . . would say “No!,” not once, but twice, to the Imperial Self? The White House, the New York Times, the entertainment industry, the mainstream media, radical feminists, and esteemed Catholic lay theologians like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Mikulski all said “Yes!,” as did the liberal Wall Street fat cats whose big bucks made New York state safe for same-sex marriage. This was a slam dunk for Obama. Obama shoots . . . he scores. Game over. As it is written, so it shall be done.

But the bishops, just about the most unfashionable group of old guys this country can produce, said no. Twice, yet. And so we have a battle Obama, by his calculations, should win.

I wouldn’t bet on it, Mr. President. And I’ll tell you why — and I bet you never learned this at Harvard Law:

In the fourth century, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, stood contra mundum against the world of emperors, (including Constantine, his sons, and Julian the Apostate), the well-organized Arian movement led by the charismatic Alexandrian priest, Arius, and even many frightened or misguided orthodox bishops. The struggle, as Athanasius wrote, was “for our all.” Was Jesus divine or not divine?

That was the question. The Arians said Jesus was highest point of creation, but not God. Athanasius said that from the beginning the Church believed and taught Jesus was God. After decades of exile, being hunted in the desert by Imperial troops, after murder of his allies, especially the desert monks, after a thousand folded lies and various forms of treachery, he won. It wasn’t easy and he was no model of civility (the nicest word he could find for his opponents was “Ariomaniac”). But he won and saved the Church.

The American Catholic bishops now are contra mundum, but it is a different world they confront. It is the world of secular radical leftism and its religious fellow travelers. It is the world of big Hollywood money, big Wall Street money, and the infinitely folded lies of the New York Times, the networks and the clueless gang at MSNBC. Even if the bishops map out a strategy including everything from prayer to mass civil disobedience, it will be an uphill struggle. But, in a constitutional sense, they will be fighting for our all. They have said No, and in doing so have taken the first step on the road back for those who do not believe the folded lie.

— William F. Gavin is author of Speechwright and a former assistant to Sen. James L. Buckley.

. .


Enjoy.........


RK

YardleyLabs
02-17-2012, 06:54 AM
I understand the concern about the use of government authority to compel organizations and individuals to contribute financially to things they believe are immoral and a violation of religious principle. I assume that those same people would be equal in their support of the elimination of other, comparable areas where government power is used in a manner that shows religious bias. Issues that come to mind:

1. Use of governmental authority to compel women to continue pregnancies they do not wish.
2. Use of government power to prohibit religiously sanctioned polygamy.
3. Use of insurance regulations to compel reimbursement for faith based treatment modalities (done is most states)
4. Use of government power to limit the definition of marriage to unions between men and women (based solely on religious principles) even when various organized religions disagree and sanction same sex marriages.
5. Efforts to use government authority to prevent mosques from being built "in the shadow" of ground zero.
6. Compelling Quakers to support war efforts through their taxes.

When the same people complaining in this case are equally vehement in opposing these uses of governmental authority in ways that run counter to religious beliefs, I will begin to take their complaints seriously. Until then, it's just political nonsense. Nothing in the law compels anyone to make use of birth control services and that is the only thing that would actually be a violation of religious principle. In this case, the Catholic church is simply trying to use government to help reinforce restrictions that its member choose to ignore on a regular basis. I also assume that the church would be equally happy to see requirements that insurance pay for maternity care be eliminated as well. In real terms, pregnancy is an elective procedure, not an illness. It was not covered by most policies when my children were born. It only began to be required when government regulations were modified in ways that compelled it.

road kill
02-17-2012, 07:46 AM
I understand the concern about the use of government authority to compel organizations and individuals to contribute financially to things they believe are immoral and a violation of religious principle. I assume that those same people would be equal in their support of the elimination of other, comparable areas where government power is used in a manner that shows religious bias. Issues that come to mind:

1. Use of governmental authority to compel women to continue pregnancies they do not wish.
2. Use of government power to prohibit religiously sanctioned polygamy.
3. Use of insurance regulations to compel reimbursement for faith based treatment modalities (done is most states)
4. Use of government power to limit the definition of marriage to unions between men and women (based solely on religious principles) even when various organized religions disagree and sanction same sex marriages.
5. Efforts to use government authority to prevent mosques from being built "in the shadow" of ground zero.
6. Compelling Quakers to support war efforts through their taxes.

When the same people complaining in this case are equally vehement in opposing these uses of governmental authority in ways that run counter to religious beliefs, I will begin to take their complaints seriously. Until then, it's just political nonsense. Nothing in the law compels anyone to make use of birth control services and that is the only thing that would actually be a violation of religious principle. In this case, the Catholic church is simply trying to use government to help reinforce restrictions that its member choose to ignore on a regular basis. I also assume that the church would be equally happy to see requirements that insurance pay for maternity care be eliminated as well. In real terms, pregnancy is an elective procedure, not an illness. It was not covered by most policies when my children were born. It only began to be required when government regulations were modified in ways that compelled it.

So, those egregiously horrible examples make this OK because they started it??

Page 3 of the handbook regards.

HE STARTED IT!!!!:rolleyes:


RK

YardleyLabs
02-17-2012, 08:42 AM
So, those egregiously horrible examples make this OK because they started it??

Page 3 of the handbook regards.

HE STARTED IT!!!!:rolleyes:


RK
Actually no. I don't believe that freedom of religion provides a blanket exception to the rules/laws of a government. If you establish a church that permits murder under various circumstances, that doesn't mean that the government has to go along. I also believe that there is a huge difference between compelling someone from doing something (e.g. having a baby, using birth control, or fighting in a war) and outlawing behavior based on the effects it has on others.

I would also note that most of those using the religious freedom arguments in this case are also proponents of greater interference of government in the privates lives of others.

road kill
02-17-2012, 08:49 AM
Actually no. I don't believe that freedom of religion provides a blanket exception to the rules/laws of a government. If you establish a church that permits murder under various circumstances, (actually, the Gov't. is the one mandating providing murder, you know, killing babies?) that doesn't mean that the government has to go along. I also believe that there is a huge difference between compelling someone from doing something (e.g. having a baby, using birth control, or fighting in a war) and outlawing behavior based on the effects it has on others.

I would also note that most of those using the religious freedom arguments in this case are also proponents of greater interference fo government in the privates lives of others.
By asking the Gov't. to NOT provide entitlement programs as careers is not interfering to me.
It is getting out of thier lives!!


I read/heard something about the uninhibited perusal and use of internet communications by HS now.

Yikes!!

Where does it stop?

Next thing you know, they will want to review the mail......oh, wait, what mail???


RK

Jason Glavich
02-17-2012, 08:59 AM
I understand the concern about the use of government authority to compel organizations and individuals to contribute financially to things they believe are immoral and a violation of religious principle. I assume that those same people would be equal in their support of the elimination of other, comparable areas where government power is used in a manner that shows religious bias. Issues that come to mind:

1. Use of governmental authority to compel women to continue pregnancies they do not wish.
2. Use of government power to prohibit religiously sanctioned polygamy.
3. Use of insurance regulations to compel reimbursement for faith based treatment modalities (done is most states)
4. Use of government power to limit the definition of marriage to unions between men and women (based solely on religious principles) even when various organized religions disagree and sanction same sex marriages.
5. Efforts to use government authority to prevent mosques from being built "in the shadow" of ground zero.
6. Compelling Quakers to support war efforts through their taxes.

When the same people complaining in this case are equally vehement in opposing these uses of governmental authority in ways that run counter to religious beliefs, I will begin to take their complaints seriously. Until then, it's just political nonsense. Nothing in the law compels anyone to make use of birth control services and that is the only thing that would actually be a violation of religious principle. In this case, the Catholic church is simply trying to use government to help reinforce restrictions that its member choose to ignore on a regular basis. I also assume that the church would be equally happy to see requirements that insurance pay for maternity care be eliminated as well. In real terms, pregnancy is an elective procedure, not an illness. It was not covered by most policies when my children were born. It only began to be required when government regulations were modified in ways that compelled it.

1. You're right Yardley every women should be able to abort any pregnancy even at 8 1/2 months? Get over the talking points, Abortion is legal. Now it can't be done after a certain point, but even that varies by state.
2. We could have a very long duscussion about this one. It is not an issue in some states, and even where is is an issue it is usually ignored.
3. This comes down to how you wish to be "healed". Once again you cannot force me to take your insurance(buying a certain product) and also force me into using it. No one says I have to go to the same Dr as you do. If I want cement butt injections it is my choice!!!!
4. Marriage is a product of the Government. You may get married in the Church, but the marriage only matters to the state and gov. No one else cares if you are married or not. I know plenty of people who have better relationships than most married people who will not get married due to tax laws, or lack of benefits. If you live with someone in a state that does not have common law spouses you could live together till the day you die and no one would care if you were married or not.
5. That is a PC thing. The mosque seemed like a slap in the face of Americans to a lot of people. Yes we are all about religous freedom, at the same time if radicals from your faith did the deed, well you can see how that may piss people off. And how it will control/sway public opinion.
6. If you live in this country and work (read as "not a gov leech") or own land in the country you will pay taxes in some way shape or form. Income,gas,property,school, etc are all taxes. Everyone pays them in some way, yes even that group that pay no federal taxes still pay taxes.



In real terms, pregnancy is an elective procedure, not an illness. It was not covered by most policies when my children were born. It only began to be required when government regulations were modified in ways that compelled it

And as to this part. First it is not always elective. Remember Mary...


An STD is an illness, caused by sex. A parasite is an illness in. So which combines the 2? Pregnancy!!!! It is an STD (All life is an STD) and then you have a parasite in your for most of the year.

(As a disclaimer anyone who reads that last part as anything close to serious, I encourage you to take your google how to take a joke.)

Yardley I just like to give you a hard time.

Buzz
02-17-2012, 09:23 AM
Neil Steinberg at The Chicago Sun-Times runs down memory lane and examines a similar debate in the 1960s when Illinois debated whether to provide access to birth control to low-income women:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/10687663-452/everything-old-is-new-again-alas.html



During testimony, one commissioner quoted Boston’s Richard Cardinal Cushing:

“I as a Catholic have absolutely no right in my thinking to foist through legislation or through other means, my doctrine of my church upon others,” the cardinal said, backing — incredibly — a similar policy in Boston, adding, “It is important to note that Catholics do not need the support of the civil law to be faithful to their religious convictions.”

Fifty years ago, both the faithful and church leaders were at least occasionally thinking about the rights of others. Now they are pressing institutional rights while disregarding the needs of people who work for them, opposing health care, one of the church’s historic strong suits. It seems to be working in the short term. The long term is a different story, and if you look at the arc of history, you know how this will end.

Franco
02-17-2012, 11:03 AM
Actually no. I don't believe that freedom of religion provides a blanket exception to the rules/laws of a government. If you establish a church that permits murder under various circumstances, that doesn't mean that the government has to go along. I also believe that there is a huge difference between compelling someone from doing something (e.g. having a baby, using birth control, or fighting in a war) and outlawing behavior based on the effects it has on others.

I would also note that most of those using the religious freedom arguments in this case are also proponents of greater interference of government in the privates lives of others.

No doubt about it!

The leaders of the Catholic and Evangelical chruches would better serve their flock by going after the pedifiles within thier leadership than telling adults that practicing birth control is some sort of sin.

road kill
02-17-2012, 11:10 AM
No doubt about it!

The leaders of the Catholic and Evangelical chruches would better serve their flock by going after the pedifiles within thier leadership than telling adults that practicing birth control is some sort of sin.
Great point!!

Too bad it is not relevant to the arguement!!

Which is, in case you missed it, the Gov't has no RIGHT to tell the Church what to do.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Do you need a linky thing???:D


RK

M&K's Retrievers
02-17-2012, 11:39 AM
I think the ultimate theft is:

OUR TAX dollars bailed out (BOUGHT) the insurance company. (so are they really a private company at this point?)

Now, we are required to send them MORE money (premiums) and we DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.

Insurance Co will not complain...they're on the receiving end of this, so they turn a blind eye to the real issues. "Who cares what's right/wrong..just send more money"

In my opinion..

It wasnt just the Church whose rights have been mangled,trampled,drowned,burned, and completely obliterated.
Ours were too.

It might help if you knew what you were talking about.The Feds did not bail out any health insurance companies. Tax dollars have not been used to subsidize any health insurance companies.

Health insurance companies are a dying breed due to state and federal regulations which require them to provide benefits or operate with no underwriting protection making it almost impossible to make a profit.

Be careful. You may get what you wish for.

Triple Lindy regards,

Oh, welcome to rtf.

Gerry Clinchy
02-17-2012, 11:39 AM
1. Use of governmental authority to compel women to continue pregnancies they do not wish.
This is really different than contraception. One is to prevent the start of a life; the other is to end a life that, at least, may have already started. At which point we are compelled to invoke the Constitutional rights of the new life is based upon when one considers life to have begun. An amoeba is a one-celled form of life. Since it is not a human cell, the Constitution has no obligation to protect an amoeba.

We can now save babies at a much earlier time in gestation. Science changed the concept of when a baby's life was viable. I am not totally opposed to ALL abortions, but see a large difference between contraception and abortion. Just a woman's point of view here.


2. Use of government power to prohibit religiously sanctioned polygamy.
Don't think that polygamy should be illegal ... except when it interferes with secular laws that may relate to govt benefits. I can see it being secular law to allow certain benefits to a limit of one wife; and the other spouses must be provided for by the common spouse. Just as one opposed to contraception shouldn't be compelled to pay for someone else's contraception, one opposed to polygamy should not be compelled to pay for someone else's polygamy. Does that make sense?


3. Use of insurance regulations to compel reimbursement for faith based treatment modalities (done is most states)
Didn't realize that was the case. On the face of it, I would not believe it is responsibility of govt to do that.

4. Use of government power to limit the definition of marriage to unions between men and women (based solely on religious principles) even when various organized religions disagree and sanction same sex marriages.
The problem, I think, is that historically "marriage" is a religious term that was adopted into secular use. If a "domestic partnership" grants the same rights as "marriage" then the secular use of the term, for any sex would be equal. It would then be a personal and private thing for the individuals to resolve their issues with their religious affiliation. But that also means that regligously-based adoption agencies should be allowed to follow their religious beliefs in their adoption policies as well.

Nothing is totally simple.

5. Efforts to use government authority to prevent mosques from being built "in the shadow" of ground zero.
Again, different ... since it is very hard (close to impossible?) to separate church and state within many Islamic countries. Much more to the controversy of the ground zero mosque than religion, I think.

6. Compelling Quakers to support war efforts through their taxes.
I can see this point ... but would seem more difficult to solve this problem since all taxes go into "one pot". If someone really wanted to, I'm thinking they could figure it out.

...............

ARay11
02-17-2012, 02:29 PM
It might help if you knew what you were talking about.The Feds did not bail out any health insurance companies. Tax dollars have not been used to subsidize any health insurance companies.

Health insurance companies are a dying breed due to state and federal regulations which require them to provide benefits or operate with no underwriting protection making it almost impossible to make a profit.
Part of what I am saying is exactly that.... when our gov't tells me I MUST spend my money in xyz fashion, and then they tell any company what their premiums must be... it's just plain wrong.

Be careful. You may get what you wish for.

Triple Lindy regards,

Oh, welcome to rtf.

In a 5 minute look up I found Prudential Insurance received a healthy portion of TARP funds. They do have health insurance subsidiary.

I'm at work, but there were 5 other major insurers who received the same portion that Prudential did... I do not yet know which of them also has health insurance.
...update... Lincoln National also received TARP and has health insurance.
....2nd update... Principal Financial is another.

I think I've been looking for 10 minutes now.

...The Hartford Group....

M&K's Retrievers
02-17-2012, 03:44 PM
In a 5 minute look up I found Prudential Insurance received a healthy portion of TARP funds. They do have health insurance subsidiary.

I'm at work, but there were 5 other major insurers who received the same portion that Prudential did... I do not yet know which of them also has health insurance.
...update... Lincoln National also received TARP and has health insurance.
....2nd update... Principal Financial is another.

I think I've been looking for 10 minutes now.

...The Hartford Group....

Their health insurance is not why they received funds. They were considered financial institutions because of investment losses. Many of the companies don't even write health insurance. Some do write dental, short and long term disability insurance and administer (non risk bearing-pay claims,handle COBRA, etc.) for self funded programs for large clients.

Keep looking.

Hew
02-17-2012, 04:26 PM
The leaders of the Catholic and Evangelical chruches would better serve their flock by going after the pedifiles within thier leadership than telling adults that practicing birth control is some sort of sin.
Those pesky Catholics and their damn religious principles. :rolleyes:

ps...where do these churches find the money to buy walking manila file folders?!? I could totally use some of those. ;-)

Franco
02-17-2012, 04:36 PM
Those pesky Catholics and their damn religious principles. :rolleyes:

ps...where do these churches find the money to buy walking manila file folders?!? I could totally use some of those. ;-)

84-89% of those pesky Catholics support birthcontrol.

This, lifed off today's Drudge Report...


- Catholics: Despite the church's teachings, 84 percent of U.S. Catholics believe a person who uses artificial birth control can still be a good Catholic, according to a CBS News poll. And 89 percent of Catholic women favor expanding access to birth control for those who can't afford it, the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute found.

--------------------------------------------------

I hate to see it but it is looking like the GOP is going to alienate the vast majority of women in this country! The candidates except for santorum aren't touching the subject, which I can't blame them. Now, we have Pelosi rallying women because they are not a part of the conversation in DC. Obama's campaign folks will make the GOP look like Neanderthals.

road kill
02-17-2012, 04:42 PM
84-89% of those pesky Catholics support birthcontrol.

This, lifed off today's Drudge Report...


- Catholics: Despite the church's teachings, 84 percent of U.S. Catholics believe a person who uses artificial birth control can still be a good Catholic, according to a CBS News poll. And 89 percent of Catholic women favor expanding access to birth control for those who can't afford it, the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute found.

--------------------------------------------------

I hate to see it but it is looking like the GOP is going to alienate the vast majority of women in this country! The candidates except for santorum aren't touching the subject, which I can't blame them. Now, we have Pelosi rallying women because they are not a part of the conversation in DC. Obama's campaign folks will make the GOP look like Neanderthals.
Could I ask what that has to do with the Feds telling the Church what to do?
I would think a self professed Constitutionalist would have some concern for the trampling of the first tenant of the Constitution!!:D

RK

Franco
02-17-2012, 04:48 PM
Could I ask what that has to do with the Feds telling the Church what to do?
I would think a self professed Constitutionalist would have some concern for the trampling of the first tenant of the Constitution!!:D

RK

I think one has to look at the hypocracy of the Chruch's claim in regards to The Constitution.

Is not the 10 Commandments a Christian doctrine?

"Thou shall not kill"

Yet, where was the chruch when they knew the Jews were being gassed or supporting any number of our wars? Or, how about their stance of the redistribution of wealth in this country?

P S

No one is being forced to take contraceptives. And, if any of the religious organizations want to wade into political discussions then they should have their tax exemption waived.

ARay11
02-17-2012, 05:56 PM
Their health insurance is not why they received funds. They were considered financial institutions because of investment losses. Many of the companies don't even write health insurance. Some do write dental, short and long term disability insurance and administer (non risk bearing-pay claims,handle COBRA, etc.) for self funded programs for large clients.

Keep looking.


Each company I listed does write health insurance.
Whether they put the TARP money in their left pocket, or their right pocket, it's still the American Tax payer's money. And it's still the gov't trying to dictate their business practices to them.

Hew
02-17-2012, 06:13 PM
84-89% of those pesky Catholics support birthcontrol.
Too bad for them that the Catholic Church isn't a democracy. IMO those 84% should find a new religious denomimnation whose doctrines they can adhere to instead of claiming to be Catholics while thumbing their nose at Catholic doctrine. But that's just me.

Franco
02-17-2012, 06:27 PM
Too bad for them that the Catholic Church isn't a democracy. IMO those 84% should find a new religious denomimnation whose doctrines they can adhere to instead of claiming to be Catholics while thumbing their nose at Catholic doctrine. But that's just me.

I agree. It is what I did, I just didn't want to get with another political religious machine and I question everything about them.;-)

M&K's Retrievers
02-17-2012, 06:53 PM
Each company I listed does write health insurance.
Whether they put the TARP money in their left pocket, or their right pocket, it's still the American Tax payer's money. And it's still the gov't trying to dictate their business practices to them.

I should have known not to get in a discussion with an insurance professional. :rolleyes:

Gerry Clinchy
02-18-2012, 07:51 AM
Unanticipated consequences.

It really doesn't matter whether one objects to contraception, or not. It has been no secret that the RC church has always been opposed to contraception. Though I don't agree with them; and many RCs who go to Mass every Sunday don't agree with them either, it has been the RCs religious doctrine as long as I can remember. If any of the people who voted for bill had read these requirements, how could they have failed to realize this would become an issue?

So, along comes Obamacare. The spit hits the fan. Now States are making laws that will allow even secular organizations to be exempted from the contraception, sterilization and abortion portions of Obamacare. I mentioned earlier that to exempt the RC church, but not others who held the same belief, would be unfair.




"In its present state, the health care bill is an affront to my religious freedoms," said Idaho Republican Rep. Carlos Bilbao, who is sponsoring the bill.



The ACLU counters, saying such bills discriminate against women.

"Each time more entities are allowed to deny contraceptive coverage, the religious beliefs of some are imposed on others, and gender equality is undermined," said Monica Hopkins, the ACLU's Idaho director.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/states-attack-obamacare-with-birth-control-bills-would-allow-insurance/#ixzz1mjxYvhqh

And I can also agree with the ACLU, this time, that depriving those who do NOT have the same belief, interferes with those other individuals' beliefs.

The point here would be that when govt decides to take over something like health care, which involves so much of individuals' personal lifestyles, they end up trampling on somebody's personal liberties.

And I surely would agree with Yardley that if govt policy would require covering "faith healers", that would also be another murky area. Would that mean that such a policy would also cover the cost of an "exorcist"?

One size fits all? It would seem not.

Gerry Clinchy
02-23-2012, 01:09 PM
I keep thinking about this ... why would health insurance cover birth control pills? isn't "insurance" for unanticipated, costly protection? When I took the pill, my ex was employed by Prudential ... and I had to pay for my own pills. They weren't part of the insurance plan.

For those whose health might preclude taking the pill there are other pretty reliable means that don't even need a prescription. These other methods also require the same personal responsibility as the pill ... you have to remember to take your pills or use condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal gels, etc. All of these are pretty reasonable in cost ... something one could put in their household budget, maybe giving up a couple of outings to McDonald's each month.

It occurs to me that those who might say they cannot afford to puchase the pills without insurance coverage for it, have failed to consider how much more it would cost to have a child?

This stuff wouldn't apply to those on public assistance, since they either don't have jobs; or have low-paying jobs whose insurance will be subsidized by the govt anyway. I betcha they are provided with contraception coverage ... yet, it appears many choose not to use it.

So, the insurance company will provide this "coverage" at no charge for all employees of those religious organizations who feel it is counter to their religious beliefs to do so. I wonder how many of those individuals there are? Presumably the insurance company will pay for the items. Even non-profit corporations, usually pass such operational costs onto the consumers. Duh?

I'm supposing that the insurors are self-insuring themselves for these costs. What if the govt said that the originators of the products and/or services had to provide these things at no charge? Pharma companies would scream; doctors would scream; and hospitals would scream. And then they, too, would pass along the increase costs to other consumers.

Does this seem like circular reasoning to you? Me, too! Back to the simple idiom: There just ain't no FREE lunch. Somebody always picks up the tab.

M&K's Retrievers
02-23-2012, 02:34 PM
Gerry, your correct. All insurance other than life, dental and vision were meant to protect and reimburse people from catastrophic loss. Life insurance has several different purposes. Dental and vision coverage are primarily perks provided by employers. They are really prepayment plans initially started by-you guessed it- unions. Back in the 60's most over the road drivers had "prescription" sunglasses.

When the state and Federal government got involved with health insurance it changed from being catastrophic coverage to womb to tomb coverage. Pregnancy ,except for complications, abortions, birth control devices and other preventative services were never meant to be insured. It's called personal responsibility.

Has your home owners or auto insurance changed in the past 30 years. Other than increasing deductibles, no.

I'm going to go train now. I'll check in later to read about the horrible money grubbing insurance companies or I know a lady who, or Podunk Mutual whose rates were too good to be true didn't pay my claim.

Don't blame the insurance companies. Blame the government regulations that make it impossible to make a profit, removes competing companies from the market and will eventually lead to government insurance. Everyone will love it. :rolleyes:

Gerry Clinchy
02-24-2012, 03:26 PM
Interesting how everyone just keeps talking about the contraception ... not the abortions and sterilization ... which are also part of this mandate.

And, once again, I ask ... how come the insurance companies pick up the tab, and not the pharma companies who make the pills; or the companies that make the condoms; or the doctors who do the contraceptive implants? Because, I think, it's easier to make the shell game more confusing when choosing the insurance companies to "take the hit" for FREE coverage for these items.

If some are not in favor of contraception, that's fine with me, as long as the taxpayer is not picking up the tab for the children they have as a result of that.

Still the whole idea of "insurance" for contraception, is a contradiction in terms. Insurance is for the unexpected and beyond-our-control, financially catastrophic, items in life. Contraception is neither a catastrophic expense, nor either of the above. I can see the value of covering preventive care for more expensive items.