Obama Defends His HHS Mandate 'Not Fair' that Catholics Won't Fund Birth Control

*That's the title of the article .. not my title.

He's still at it. This so-called 'constitutional lawyer' just won't stop trying to take away the constitutional rights of Americans.

Obama Defends His HHS Mandate 'Not Fair' that Catholics Won't Fund Birth Control

In a short interview Monday with Karen Swensen of New Orleans’ CBS affiliate WWLTV, President Barack Obama reiterated his support for the HHS birth control mandate, this time adding it’s “not fair” that a woman working for a Catholic institution should “bear the burden and the cost” of paying for her own contraception.

Obama goes on to contradict himself. He says that 'religious liberty is critical' but then insists that church outreaches that employ "many" (arbitary number) of non-Catholics should still have to break their religious beliefs and provide free birth control. And he fails to state just how narrow the 'religious exemption' really is in the mandate.

The Catholic Response -

Critics have pointed out that the mandate’s “religious employer” exemption is limited only to institutions serving primarily members of their own sect, a definition experts called dramatically narrower than any other in the history of federal conscience laws.

“Jesus himself, or the Good Samaritan of his famous parable, would not qualify as ‘religious enough’ for the exemption, since they insisted on helping people who did not share their view of God,” Cardinal Daniel Dinardo famously said in a Sept 26 statement. “The ‘religious employer’ exemption offered by the Department is so extremely narrow that it protects almost no one.”

Freedom of Religion = constitutional right.
Birth Control = personal choice and commodity.
It's just that simple.
Does the 'constitutional lawyer' Obama not get that ... or is he being a typical partisan?

reply to post by FlyersFan


Freedom of religion is an INDIVIDUAL right to practice one's chosen religion. That does not include picking and choosing which parts of the law to follow.

Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions of such liberties by civil authorities. However, the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question.

Freedom of Religion Law

In other words, just because there is a religious belief underlying the use of birth control, that doesn't mean the religious can dictate that others abide by their belief. And if the law requires birth control be covered in health care, and religions are going to participate in health care, they have to do so, following the law.

The government is not forcing anyone to take birth control.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH,Does this law not force me and others to pay into a system that supports abortion and birth control measures?
Forcing me to have to choose between staying legal,or standing for my ethics ?

reply to post by daddyroo45

Originally posted by daddyroo45
BH,Does this law not force me and others to pay into a system that supports abortion and birth control measures?
Forcing me to have to choose between staying legal,or standing for my ethics ?

You live in the US, where freedom of choice and reproductive rights are upheld. Freedom, choice and rights... And that's a bitch, isn't it? To live in this country legally, I am forced to pay for the growth of a corrupt Military Industrial Complex and for wars in foreign lands that kill innocent people. That has nothing to do with freedom, choice or rights... And THAT'S against my ethics... I guess I could move to another country, right?

I suggest Catholics do the same.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In other words, just because there is a religious belief underlying the use of birth control, that doesn't mean the religious can dictate that others abide by their belief.

And the Catholics aren't stopping anyone from using birth control.
So that arguement doesn't fit.

The government is not forcing anyone to take birth control.

No. It's forcing a church to provide free birth control when it is against their religion.

Clear cut case of going against the Constitution.
Being a supposed 'constitutional lawyer' Obama should know better.
IMHO he probably does know better .. but doesn't he care.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And THAT'S against my ethics... I guess I could move to another country, right? I suggest Catholics do the same.

For this conversation, your ethics are irrelevant. Your ethics aren't protected by the Constitution.
Freedom of religion as promised by the US Constitution is what is relevant.
So when people's constitutional rights are threatened, they should just move to a different country?

Yeah .. okay.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by daddyroo45

 

Originally posted by daddyroo45
BH,Does this law not force me and others to pay into a system that supports abortion and birth control measures?
Forcing me to have to choose between staying legal,or standing for my ethics ?

You live in the US, where freedom of choice and reproductive rights are upheld. Freedom, choice and rights... And that's a bitch, isn't it? To live in this country legally, I am forced to pay for the growth of a corrupt Military Industrial Complex and for wars in foreign lands that kill innocent people. That has nothing to do with freedom, choice or rights... And THAT'S against my ethics... I guess I could move to another country, right?

I suggest Catholics do the same.

I agree with Freedom, choice, and rights. However, having someone else pay for something does not fall into any of those things.

How does not forcing one person to pay for a choice of another person take away that person's freedom of choice? You have the right to free speech, but that right of yours does not obligate me to buy you a printing press.

Rights do not equal entitlements, IMHO.

and with this HHS press release from last march, we still see confusion.

Official HHS News Release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2012

Administration releases Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preventive services policy

Officials at the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury today took the next step in the Obama administration’s effort to ensure women access to recommended preventive services while respecting religious liberty. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued today outlines draft proposals to implement the policy announced by President Barack Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Feb. 10, 2012. This policy will provide women with access to recommended preventive services including contraceptives without cost sharing, while ensuring that non-profit religious organizations are not forced to pay for, provide, or facilitate the provision of any contraceptive service they object to on religious grounds. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued today gives all Americans the chance to formally comment on ideas for implementing this policy.

Administration officials also released a final rule governing student health plans. Under the final rule, students will gain the same consumer protections other people with individual market insurance have, like a prohibition on lifetime limits and coverage of preventive services without cost sharing. In the same way that religious colleges and universities will not have to pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, they will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer.

“The President’s policy respects religious liberty and makes free preventive services available to women,” said Secretary Sebelius. “Today’s announcement is the next step toward fulfilling that commitment.”

Today’s Federal Register advance notice concerning women’s preventive services calls for a 90-day public comment period. The departments will also hold listening sessions.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking on women’s preventive services and the student health plan final rule is available in the Federal Register at
www.federalregister.gov...

For more information on women’s preventive services, visit:
www.healthcare.gov...

For more information on the student health plan final rule, visit:
www.healthcare.gov...

HHS News release


What does this "announcement" mean ?

And what has happened since.

Perhaps Obama & Co. are just campaigning.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No. It's forcing a church to provide free birth control when it is against their religion.

You're wrong.

1. Churches are exempt.
2. No one is providing free birth control. The organizations provide access to health insurance at a cost. The EMPLOYEE pays for their insurance, as every employee does. It's not free and the "church" doesn't pay for it.

Clear cut case of going against the Constitution.
Being a supposed 'constitutional lawyer' Obama should know better.
IMHO he probably does know better .. but doesn't he care.

And you DO know better? I don't think so.

For this conversation, your ethics are irrelevant. Your ethics aren't protected by the Constitution.

Neither are religious ethics.

Freedom of religion as promised by the US Constitution is what is relevant.

And these people are FREE to practice their religion.

So when people's constitutional rights are threatened, they should just move to a different country?

I was making a point. It's not what I think.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by daddyroo45

 

Originally posted by daddyroo45
BH,Does this law not force me and others to pay into a system that supports abortion and birth control measures?
Forcing me to have to choose between staying legal,or standing for my ethics ?

You live in the US, where freedom of choice and reproductive rights are upheld. Freedom, choice and rights... And that's a bitch, isn't it? To live in this country legally, I am forced to pay for the growth of a corrupt Military Industrial Complex and for wars in foreign lands that kill innocent people. That has nothing to do with freedom, choice or rights... And THAT'S against my ethics... I guess I could move to another country, right?

I suggest Catholics do the same.

Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water in this context. While Catholic individuals do have to pay taxes to support stupid wars, the Catholic Church and its affiliated caritable institutions DO NOT pay into the tax system because they are exempt from the tax code.

I cannot understand why it is that people feel that having access to birth control is so important that it is worth trampling on religious freedom to force institutions to buy it for everyone.

Also, by your same reasoning, if someone finds their access to healthcare so limited by working for a Catholic institution, why don't they just go out and get another job?

Seems like a much more reasonable solution than trampling on religious freedom or asking the Church to leave the country if they don't like it.

reply to post by FortAnthem

Originally posted by FortAnthem
While Catholic individuals do have to pay taxes to support stupid wars, the Catholic Church and its affiliated caritable institutions DO NOT pay into the tax system because they are exempt from the tax code.

They are also exempt from this rule:

“That’s the reason why we exempted churches, we exempted religious institutions,” the president said

I cannot understand why it is that people feel that having access to birth control is so important that it is worth trampling on religious freedom to force institutions to buy it for everyone.

And I don't understand how having comprehensive preventative health insurance "tramples on religious freedom". No one is forcing ANYONE to take birth control. It's called FREEDOM for the individual.

A system where you are forced to pay for others is wrong
They aren't forcing birth control on any individual but they forcing the subsidy of it

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To live in this country legally, I am forced to pay for the growth of a corrupt Military Industrial Complex and for wars in foreign lands that kill innocent people. That has nothing to do with freedom, choice or rights... And THAT'S against my ethics

Is it really against your ethics if you will vote for the same pro-war guy to be re-elected?

Sorry don't mean to go off-topic just wondering what your thoughts on that is

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Churches are exempt.

No they aren't. Obama is hitting the churches through their outreaches.
Read the Catholic response in the opening post and you'll see how.
The whole point of a church outreach is that it follows the beliefs of that church.

No one is providing free birth control.

that's what Obama wants .. he said it .. he wants the Catholic church to fund birth control.

And you DO know better? I don't think so.

Apparently I do.

Neither are religious ethics.

It's not religious 'ethics' .. it's religion and religious faith as protected by the Constitution.
Big difference.

And these people are FREE to practice their religion.

No they aren't. The church isn't free to practice it's faith if it's outreaches are
being required to fund birth control .. which is what Obama wants. That means
the church can't practice it's faith .. it's faith being to have church outreaches
that follow their faith.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They are also exempt from this rule:

“That’s the reason why we exempted churches, we exempted religious institutions,” the president said

Again .. if you read the opening post and the Catholic statement you'll see that Obama's remarks are simply not true.

And I don't understand how having comprehensive preventative health insurance "tramples on religious freedom".

I've posted the information from the Catholic church before. I posted the church documents showing that the Catholic faith states very clearly that Catholics can not help others to engage in artificial birth control. It's considered a mortal sin for them ... (that means they believe they'll go to hell for doing it).

So forcing a Catholic to help someone else 'sin' does indeed 'trample on religious freedom'.
It's no different than force feeding bacon to a jew or a muslim.

Hmmm.... the religious trampling on people's rights versus Obama trampling on people's rights.

How quaint.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
the religious trampling on people's rights versus Obama trampling on people's rights.

- The religious aren't trampling on anyones 'rights'.
- Free birth control isn't a right.
- Birth control in general isn't a right .. it's a commodity.
- And the religious aren't stopping anyone from going out and getting themselves a 25 cent condom at the local gas station or a free one from Planned Parenthood.

How dare he point his bloody dirty fingers at the Catholics for his irresponsible economic policies?Damn heathen,we're watching you.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Again .. if you read the opening post and the Catholic statement you'll see that Obama's remarks are simply not true.

I have no interest in whatsoever in the dogma the Catholic Church is trying to sell. I don't need to hear their view to be educated on the matter.

It's no different than force feeding bacon to a jew or a muslim.

I missed the part where they're force-feeding birth control to Catholics.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have no interest in whatsoever in the dogma the Catholic Church is trying to sell. I don't need to hear their view to be educated on the matter.

Actually ... you do. Otherwise you don't understand what the religion is and how their faith is being violated by Obama.

I missed the part where they're force-feeding birth control to Catholics.

Force feeding bacon to jews or muslims is against their religion.
Forcing the Catholic church to provide free birth control is against their religion.

SAME/SAME