It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The first of MANY law suits I'm sure -

Newsmax - EWTN Sues Obama Administration Over Mandate


Mother Angelica’s cable television network has filed suit over the Obama administration’s new rule requiring it and some other religious-affiliated endeavors to provide employees with health insurance coverage that includes free birth control.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed the suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court on behalf of the Catholic nun’s Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). “We had no other option but to take this to the courts,” said EWTN President and CEO Michael Warsaw. “There is no question that this mandate violates our First Amendment rights.”

The new rule, part of the Obama healthcare law, requires religious-affiliated institutions to provide its employees with insurance that covers contraceptive services and sterilization. The Catholic Church and other religious groups say this is forcing them to pay for something their faith considers a sin.


EWTN is highly favored with the Vatican. It is seen around the world and is heard around the world on short wave. When we were in Bolivia adopting our daughter, we saw EWTN on the TV there .. the daily mass .. translated into Spanish. It's EVERYWHERE.

CATHOLIC hospitals. CATHOLIC schools. CATHOLIC radio and tv stations. CATHOLIC orphanages. ALL are part of the Catholic Church. They aren't in buildings with stained glass, but they are part of the Catholic Church.

And, no matter how many people call themselves Catholic and 'pro choice', the Catholic Church itself can not ever take part in artificial birth control or abortion. Not even second hand - which is what the mandate requires.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Sin


1868 - Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers


Catholics have an obligation of faith not to participate in abortion/birth control, not to 'approve' it (and by paying for it you approve it), and if you fail to 'hinder' it if it's in your power, then you are guilty of serious (mortal) sin.

Church law - Catechism of the Catholic Church - Part three, section two, chapter two

Catholic teaching on abortion/birth control

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14).

This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399).

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).



Now all the anti-Catholic haters out there will start in with off topic blah blah blah ... but the fact is that it doesn't matter what you or I believe ... it doesn't matter how many Catholics follow Church teaching ... it doesn't matter that the Catholic Church (along with the protestant churches and US public school system) has a problem with pedophiles .... what matters is the FIRST AMENDMENT of the US CONSTITUTION and common sense. The CATHOLIC Church runs the Catholic hospitals, the Catholic schools, the Catholic radio and TV stations, and the Catholic orphanages.

If the Obama administration, and his anti-Catholic shills at MSNBC (and the rest of his shills), push this then these hospitals, schools, radio and tv stations and orphages will CLOSE DOWN. All because the Obama administration is hell bent on, unconstitutionally, making the Catholic Church pay for people's birth control pills. Considering that the Catholic Church sets up it's hospitals usually the poorest neighborhoods .. Obamas mandate forcing closings will only hurt the people he supposedly is trying to help. (which I don't buy at all ... it's just election year pandering to the left to try to get votes).

Huffington Post - Obama Birth Control Mandate Divides Democrats
Even Joe Biden, John Kerry, and other democrats know Obama stepped in it.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I have a question. If Catholics don't use birth control or have abortions that means no one is using the birth control that will be provided... How can it be a sin if no one is using it?

WHO is the sinner in this case? If no one is using the birth control, how is it a sin?

If I offered a Catholic something that's a sin and they don't take it, who is the sinner?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Why didn't the file suit against the Bush Administration?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I swear, the level of ignorance on this whole thing is impressive.

Also, it seems the President is about to cave on this.

www.boston.com...

Not that it'll do him any good with the usual right wing trolls - as we all know he can do no good in some people's eyes, even if he gives them what they want.
edit on 10-2-2012 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If Catholics don't use birth control or have abortions that means no one is using the birth control that will be provided... How can it be a sin if no one is using it?


That's not what is happening. The people working in the hospitals, clinics, schools, orphanages, tv and radio stations aren't all practicing Catholics. OF COURSE they'll be using it. Otherwise .... if they weren't .. why would Obama be pushing for something that doesn't get used?

Go back and read the opening post. The information provided on Catholic beliefs.
They can not provide anyone with the birth control. Ever.

I've used this before and I'll use it again ... best way to explain it .... if the USA pays for Israel to bomb Iran, then even though the USA isn't dropping the bombs, they are still responsible for the bombing. This is how it is in the Catholic faith with birth control. The Catholics may not be using it, but if they help someone else use it then they are just as 'guilty' as if they had used it themselves.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Why didn't the file suit against the Bush Administration?

Dunno. You'll have to call and ask them yourself. Perhaps the Bush administration didn't push the law. I have no idea. I googled their number - 205-271-2900. I'm sure the receptionist won't know but if you ask for the legal department you might be able to get an answer.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ok, since you won't bother to read the linked information, i'll paste it here:


In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.


Bush let it happen, so clearly we need to get angry with Obama.
edit on 10-2-2012 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Also, it seems the President is about to cave on this.
Not that it'll do him any good with the usual right wing trolls

There are many members of his own party .. high ranking members - who know he screwed up.
Huffington Post - Obama Birth Control Mandate Divides Democrats
Even Joe Biden, John Kerry, and other democrats know Obama stepped in it
Are they 'right wing trolls'??



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Ok, since you won't bother to read the linked information, i'll paste it here:

Ok, since you won't bother to read what I posted .. I'll say it again ...
I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THEY DIDN"T GET UPSET WITH BUSH. Go ask them yourself.
I gave you the number, but you'd rather get pissy with me ??? Absurd.

It's the Obama administration that is in office now .. it's the Obama administration pushing it
... so clearly it's the Obama administration that is going to feel the heat.

GO ASK EWTN if they were pushed on this while Bush was in. I have no idea. I already said that.
edit on 2/10/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No, but i was referring to the likes of you, beezer, and the rest of the crew here at ATS. There is nothing the man nor his administration can do that would please you, so really... whats the point?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Well, it looks like Obama is going to cave on this anyway, so the Catholics get their control.

And the GOP are the ones who made this an issue about Obama. I hope everyone who is fussing about this knows that they were led by the nose by the mainstream media to make a big deal out of this. Congratulations for thinking how you're told to think.

As has been shown, this has been around for a while and is law in 28 states. Hopefully Obama can find a way to provide the non-Catholics with birth control so the Catholics can pretend they're all righteous, while taking their birth control in secret...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
i was referring to the likes of you, beezer, and the rest of the crew here at ATS. There is nothing the man nor his administration can do that would please you, so really... whats the point?

Get on topic. The topic is .... EWTN launches the first, of what could be many, lawsuits against the unconstitutional mandate by the Obama administration that forces Catholic hospitals, Catholic TV stations, Catholic radio stations, Catholic orpanages and Catholic schools to go against it's faith. The mandate is being pushed by the Obama administration. If held up, it will force the Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic orphanages, etc etc to CLOSE.

The Catholic outreach hospitals are usually in the most dire neighborhoods. The schools and orphanages do good work. My own daughter came from a Catholic orphanage. Of course his administration pushing a mandate that would require these type of places to close not going to 'please me'. Romney-care carried the nearly same mandate. If he got in and pushed it .. I'd 'not be pleased' with that either. geeeze.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by negativenihil
i was referring to the likes of you, beezer, and the rest of the crew here at ATS. There is nothing the man nor his administration can do that would please you, so really... whats the point?

Get on topic. The topic is .... EWTN launches the first, of what could be many, lawsuits against the unconstitutional mandate by the Obama administration that forces Catholic hospitals, Catholic TV stations, Catholic radio stations, Catholic orpanages and Catholic schools to go against it's faith. The mandate is being pushed by the Obama administration. If held up, it will force the Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic orphanages, etc etc to CLOSE.

The Catholic outreach hospitals are usually in the most dire neighborhoods. The schools and orphanages do good work. My own daughter came from a Catholic orphanage. Of course his administration pushing a mandate that would require these type of places to close not going to 'please me'. Romney-care carried the nearly same mandate. If he got in and pushed it .. I'd 'not be pleased' with that either. geeeze.


Well... you're getting your way now, so... Hooray? Are you actually going to praise the President for bending to YOUR will?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

So now, with this precedent, Jewish run hospitals can deny covering heart valve surgery (using pig heart valves!), Muslim run hospitals can deny covering alcoholism treatment since that's a sin, and so on.

Pat yourself on the back, you won!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No, but i was referring to the likes of you, beezer, and the rest of the crew here at ATS. There is nothing the man nor his administration can do that would please you, so really... whats the point?

And what? You wrote love letters to Bush, had warm thoughts about the Tea Party?

Partisan works both ways.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have a question. If Catholics don't use birth control or have abortions that means no one is using the birth control that will be provided... How can it be a sin if no one is using it?

WHO is the sinner in this case? If no one is using the birth control, how is it a sin?

If I offered a Catholic something that's a sin and they don't take it, who is the sinner?


So you ascribe religious tenents not by the church, but by the followers?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No, but i was referring to the likes of you, beezer, and the rest of the crew here at ATS. There is nothing the man nor his administration can do that would please you, so really... whats the point?

And what? You wrote love letters to Bush, had warm thoughts about the Tea Party?

Partisan works both ways.


I love how your arguments always boil down to "but but but the liberals did it first!!!!"

Kindly pound sand, the President is bending to your wishes... can you bring yourself to say anything positive about it?

I know *I* certainly would have the testicular fortitude to have cheered had Bush caved to anything the left wanted... but yeah, he didn't.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Well... you're getting your way now, so... Hooray? Are you actually going to praise the President for bending to YOUR will?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

So now, with this precedent, Jewish run hospitals can deny covering heart valve surgery (using pig heart valves!), Muslim run hospitals can deny covering alcoholism treatment since that's a sin, and so on.

Pat yourself on the back, you won!

That is their RIGHT to do so. How DARE you or anyone else "preach" to a faith and TELL them how to believe!

If I remember correctly, you worship Satan, correct?

Want me to start TELLING you HOW to do it?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Well... you're getting your way now, so... Hooray?

If he backs down then the FIRST AMENDMENT has been protected. So yes .. HOORAY.

Jewish run hospitals can deny covering heart valve surgery (using pig heart valves!), Muslim run hospitals can deny covering alcoholism treatment since that's a sin, and so on.

Fine. If people want those kinds of treatments or surgeries then they can go to a place that DOES offer them. And the people who run those religious based hospitals can be left in peace to run them according to their belief system ... AS THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS.

Pat yourself on the back, you won!

The people who go to the Catholic hospitals will have won - they won't have to close.
The people who are helped in Catholic orphanages will have won - they'll stay open.
The people working in the Catholic TV studio and Radio stations will have won - they'll still have jobs.

The Obama administration screwed up while trying to get left wing votes. This mandate is totally unconstitutional. Even the democrats see that. Biden. Kerry. Obama stepped in it. He over reached.


Some funny hypocrisy has come shining forth though .. the people here screaming about muslim rights and 'muslim haters' turn out to be the biggest anti-Catholic 'haters' ... and those that scream 'rights' don't want the Catholics to have their constitutional rights when it clashes with their own beliefs.
A reality TV show worthy of comedy central!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It does sound like Obama will compromise on this...and who can blame him?

He has been getting hammered every single day...and who is coming out to support him? Where are all the women's rights groups? You have individuals backing Obama on this...but I have not seen whole groups or large groups come out and support him on this.

Of course they will cry when compromises...but what do they expect?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

That is their RIGHT to do so. How DARE you or anyone else "preach" to a faith and TELL them how to believe!

If I remember correctly, you worship Satan, correct?

Want me to start TELLING you HOW to do it?


Last I checked - Hospitals aren't churches, and churches aren't hospitals. But well, That's clearly going to change.

What aspect of my Satan worship would you like clarification on? It's not like I can go over to the local 1st Church of Satan every weekend to worship (mostly due to the simple fact that we do NOT have freedom of religion here in America. It's all good if you're a flavor of Christian or Jewish... but look out if you're Muslim or a Satanist like myself). It's a private practice within the security of my own home. But really, PM me and we can go over details.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No, but i was referring to the likes of you, beezer, and the rest of the crew here at ATS. There is nothing the man nor his administration can do that would please you, so really... whats the point?

And what? You wrote love letters to Bush, had warm thoughts about the Tea Party?

Partisan works both ways.


I love how your arguments always boil down to "but but but the liberals did it first!!!!"

Kindly pound sand, the President is bending to your wishes... can you bring yourself to say anything positive about it?

I know *I* certainly would have the testicular fortitude to have cheered had Bush caved to anything the left wanted... but yeah, he didn't.

Pathetic!
Obama bent to not MY wishes but to a public outcry and a clear violation of the 1st Ammendment.

Smooth move for a "constitutional scholar".



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join