2012 Tuesday: With Obamacare contraception ruling, the president burns a wide bridge
Sometimes, you have to wonder if the uber-brains in the Obama administration/re-elect team are so bored with merely running the country that they try to challenge themselves by making matters more difficult than need be.
Last week was one of those times. Just in case Obamacare — to which President Obama hardly referred in his State of the Union address/campaign speech — didn’t seem like enough of a liability, the administration declared that all employer health-insurance plans will have to cover sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. There will be no exception if an employer is a religious group whose doctrine opposes these things. Among other things, it was the latest sign that President Obama’s infamous promise about his health-care reform — that you could keep your present coverage if you liked it — was an example of active deception.
(One assumes there will be no retroactive decisions by fact-checkers like Politifact to name that Obama line — and not the GOP criticisms of Obamacare — the “Lie of the Year” for 2009 or 2010. It’s little consolation that Obama’s line is the leader in the clubhouse for Lie of the Century.)
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson calls [note: link is now fixed] the decision “the most transparently anti-Catholic maneuver by the federal government” in more than 135 years:
Obama chose to substantially burden a religious belief, by the most intrusive means, for a less-than-compelling state purpose — a marginal increase in access to contraceptives that are easily available elsewhere. …
The implications of Obama’s power grab go further than contraception and will provoke opposition beyond Catholicism. Christian colleges and universities of various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for abortifacients. And the astounding ambition of this federal precedent will soon be apparent to every religious institution. Obama is claiming the executive authority to determine which missions of believers are religious and which are not — and then to aggressively regulate institutions the government declares to be secular. It is a view of religious liberty so narrow and privatized that it barely covers the space between a believer’s ears.
The New York Times’ Ross Douthat points to an even broader implication of the new regulation:
A number of religious groups, led by the American Catholic bishops, had requested an exemption for plans purchased by their institutions. Instead, the White House has settled on an exemption that only covers religious institutions that primarily serve members of their own faith. A parish would be exempt from the mandate, in other words, but a Catholic hospital would not.
Ponder that for a moment. In effect, the Department of Health and Human Services is telling religious groups that if they don’t want to pay for practices they consider immoral, they should stick to serving their own co-religionists rather than the wider public. Sectarian self-segregation is O.K., but good Samaritanism is not. The rule suggests a preposterous scenario in which a Catholic hospital avoids paying for sterilizations and the morning-after pill by closing its doors to atheists and Muslims, and hanging out a sign saying “no Protestants need apply.”
Maybe the GOP line about Obamacare’s amounting to a “government takeover of health care” will turn out to be not such a “lie” after all. As Douthat goes on to note:
The regulations are a particularly cruel betrayal of Catholic Democrats, many of whom had defended the health care law as an admirable fulfillment of Catholicism’s emphasis on social justice. Now they find that their government’s communitarianism leaves no room for their church’s communitarianism, and threatens to regulate it out of existence.
Will Catholics who have supported the Democratic Party in spite of its decades-long pro-abortion stance decide an insurance regulation is the philosophical breaking point? Maybe: Up until now, they could rationalize to themselves that they weren’t being forced to take an action themselves that violated their consciences. Now they’ll have to come up with a new justification.
If they can’t find one, it could have a sizable impact on this year’s contest. Catholics made up more than a quarter of the 2008 electorate, and Obama won the group by 9 percentage points. John Kerry, who is a Catholic, lost the group by 5 points in 2004. Had Obama repeated Kerry’s performance with Catholics, it would have lopped 2 whole points off his popular-vote win. (The effects in the Electoral College would have been harder to gauge.) And this is another case in which the folks Obama has alienated will probably be highly motivated to vote against him, whereas the people happy with his decision won’t be much more likely to turn out in his support.
Another way in which this decision may have bigger implications for the 2012 election is in the personal embarrassment it visits upon some of the high-profile Catholics who had sought to engage Obama, from the president of Notre Dame to various Catholic bishops. There likely will be a lot fewer Catholic leaders — as well as Protestant ones — willing to stand as apologists for this president.
Then again, fooling people into thinking Obama was a safe, middle-of-the-road, post-partisan candidate proved to be pretty easy in 2008. The president’s actions over the past three years have made the jobs of the Obama 2012 team harder. But perhaps, in their minds, not hard enough.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
213 comments Add your comment
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 31st, 2012
12:23 pm
Obozo’s a liar? Huge surprise.
Bend over, Catholics. Time for your political prostate check.
clyde
January 31st, 2012
12:25 pm
Enter the very buttons that the Conservatives hate to have pushed.
Do what??????
January 31st, 2012
12:25 pm
So he’s just pissed off another large voting bloc.
Good job, Barry.
getalife
January 31st, 2012
12:27 pm
“Photos Of Osama Bin Laden’s Death May Be Released” Aol
October surprise.
Check mate.
Do what??????
January 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
WaPost just put out a column calling the president the most polarizing president. Ever.
Keep up the good work, Barry!
Do what??????
January 31st, 2012
12:28 pm
“October surprise.’
Uh, those photos were released already. Try again.
Also, killing OBL will not get him re-elected.
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
12:33 pm
I don’t worry personally, except for my kids….You do realize the VD rate almost DOUBLED in the South from 2006 to 2010….!?!?
Ernest T. Bass
January 31st, 2012
12:38 pm
Yeah how dare they cover birth control devices.
I mean the Catholic Church has a long and proud history on this subject.
Deny them condoms so they have 11 kids and can never enjoy any prosperity !!!!
But perhaps, in their minds, not hard enough.
Considering the competition and lies coming from the right.
1. Obama is a Muslim
2. Obama was born in Kenya.
3. Obama pals around with terrorists
It shouldn’t really be a problem,
Ernest T. Bass
January 31st, 2012
12:44 pm
I don’t worry personally, except for my kids….You do realize the VD rate almost DOUBLED in the South from 2006 to 2010….!?!?
Wanna know why.
Idiots who think Abstinence programs work.
They don’t
Mad Max
January 31st, 2012
12:47 pm
This is what you get from a community organizer who thinks he knows what is good for us. We don’t need to think, he has us covered. What’s next, mandatory abortions for fetuses with recognizable defects, after all, it’s for the good of the “community”. Bork had it right when he said everytime we legislate something we lose a freedom.
jconservative
January 31st, 2012
12:51 pm
The decision by HHS will be appealed to the Supreme Court on 1st Amendment grounds.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
The decision a couple of weeks a by the Court in a case brought by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod held that the government could not tell a religious institution how to hire and fire its ministers.
It is only an intellectual baby step to overturn this ruling by HHS.
There is no difference between a Catholic school and a Catholic hospital, both are run by the diocese
or a local parish. Catholic schools are open to non-catholics, Catholic hospitals are open to non-catholics and Catholic Churches are open to non- catholics. HHS is drawing a distinction that does not in fact exist in the real world.
With 6 Catholics on the Court one would like the odds on an overturn of the directive.
Mad Max
January 31st, 2012
12:51 pm
Ernest – Maybe if you tried being a parent to your kids instead of leaving that job to the schools, you will find that abstinence does work. I’ve never heard of someone who abstained getting VD.
yuzeyurbrane
January 31st, 2012
12:54 pm
Kyle, nobody would be holding a gun to anyone’s head to make them use contraceptives. Catholics who are anti-contraceptive (a minority in their own church) can just say no. What about movie comparison? No one makes you go to a movie or even stay if you are offended. What happened to your libertarian leanings?
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
12:55 pm
jconservative: I agree about the likelihood of a lawsuit and of said suit’s success. But it’s disturbing that the president would force the issue in this way.
commoncents
January 31st, 2012
12:57 pm
yuzeyurbrain: “What about movie comparison? No one makes you go to a movie or even stay if you are offended. What happened to your libertarian leanings?”
Not an accurate example. In this situation, you’re being forced to pay for the movie you never wanted to see or don’t want to support
Buttercup
January 31st, 2012
12:57 pm
“the administration declared that all employer health-insurance plans will have to cover sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. There will be no exception if an employer is a religious group whose doctrine opposes these things.”
Yep, nothing like getting a job, keeping the job, paying for health insurance, and then finding out that the employer wont pay for meds or services due to their religious beliefs. Go Obama!
JF McNamara
January 31st, 2012
12:58 pm
I’m sure this will get be adjusted. It’s a new law. You always start with one thing and make positive adjustments along the way. This won’t even be a topic in a few weeks. It’s just another Libya, Wikileaks, or debt ceiling “crisis”.
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
January 31st, 2012
1:02 pm
I never met a Catholic that was a good Christian. Too busy following the Pope to follow Jesus.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
1:07 pm
yuze: Extremely poor analogy on two counts. First, people whose insurance is provided by a Catholic institution today are not barred from buying contraceptives, etc. — it’s just that their employer will not pay all or part of the cost.
Second, no one makes me pay for a ticket to the movie that offends me if I don’t go. Any additional coverage that is mandated comes with an increased premium. The church will be paying for something that it doctrinally opposes. This is a blatant violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
As for my libertarian leanings: This directive is the antithesis of libertarianism, because, unlike the status quo, it will force some people to do something that violates their conscience.
Let’s look at it another way: I know some Jewish people who eat pork, but it would be absurd and unconstitutional for the government to mandate that any store that sells meat also sell pork or other items that aren’t kosher (or halal, for that matter). Not having such a mandate, OTOH, does not violate anyone’s right to eat pork if they wish.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
1:10 pm
JF: There was a temporary rule enacted in August, and plenty of back-and-forth on the matter in the interim. The administration knew exactly what it was doing here.
TRUTH
January 31st, 2012
1:12 pm
Man, you Righties are hanging on too anything! Hilarious. The President is looking at this at a more larger scale than your limited view of the world. Contraception is S-M-A-R-T. (Of Course that may be a bit much for most of you…). Further, grasping at something so small as, well, maybe preventing unwanted pregnancies, or maybe even the transfer of STD’s (you do know STD means, right?), and further underscoring a healthier lifestyle to REDUCE the impact of costs to healthcare, might be kinda right. But, nooooooooooo….. I guess I should have watched the GOP debates to learn that science bad, GOP ideology good.
The GOP is done. You can wish for the days that your fear mongering, finger waving, and being tone deaf to the citizenry are over. Romney and Gingrich, Santorum and Paul…wtf?
GO OBAMA!!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 31st, 2012
1:16 pm
TRUTH, that’s the ticket–we just need the government to decide what the “smart” thing to do is, and then require everyone to do that thing.
Now run along to your liberal fascist meeting.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
1:16 pm
TRUTH: Missing the point, as usual.
theTruth
January 31st, 2012
1:18 pm
Isn’t the Bible basically a book of regulations?
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
January 31st, 2012
1:19 pm
Voters complained they could not afford the Lipitor & Zocor they need to counteract the effects of all the Pork Chop “samiches” they have a “constitutional right” to eat. The health care law may end being repealed. Most conservative would agree, I think, that we have too many poor people running around and we need to thin them out because they are a drain on the taxpayer and the ‘ job creator”.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
This is an early sign that his re-election chances don’t look very good. Start putting in rulings that you haven’t thought through, ignore the Constitution by using ill-advised recess appointments, expand the use of Executive orders.
All designed to get things done before you’re booted out.
Can you imagine what a lame-duck time frame would be like with this Disaster-in-Chief if November doesn’t go well for him, but good for the country?
St Simons - codewords are the new black
January 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
wah-wah-wah Give us “faith based initiatives” w/gubmint monay!
wah-wah-wah I don’t want any rules or consequences of said monay!
I know a 3-year old toddler who acts like this – have big ol cup o shutup
ATLBadger
January 31st, 2012
1:22 pm
Fortunately for Obama, I don’t think this is much of an issue to the average American Catholic, most of whom happily use birth control….
It’s always amusing though to see what America’s religious right is getting its underwear in a bind over though!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
1:25 pm
“Isn’t the Bible basically a book of regulations?”
One could look at it that way, however, religion (or lack thereof) is a voluntary act to follow.
Government? Not so much.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
1:26 pm
Obama….keep burning those bridges….Great job.
GT
January 31st, 2012
1:28 pm
Catholics are in the game for more than the medicine. They want to control none Catholics patients as well as their own. If most Catholics are like the ones I know they are not hard practicing Catholics anyway, so by painting everybody into the box of not favoring birth control doesn’t describe the situation of the whole. It is like saying Gingrich represents the church, when obviously he picks and choices ,like most of us, which sins suit him and which one do not.
I think you will find your narrow argument is yesterday’s news especially since you have picked morality as a stand for the Republican party with a straight face. I think Obama realizes he has no legitimate competition in this area from the right, and you will find in the general population where people admit they have sex this is a very popular decision. For those that don’t like it, there is always the freedom to not participate in such activity in their own lives. If morals is you main foundation start acting like it, or no one is going to take anything you say seriously. I’m not sure that is not the case now. The damage you people do to yourselves, religion and the rest of us is beyond accountability.
the edge
January 31st, 2012
1:29 pm
We kinda new all along what a dang liar Obama is.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
1:30 pm
GT…..your comments are comical. “Obama realizes he has no legitimate competition in this area from the right”? God I hope this is truly what he thinks! The polls show differently.
joe
January 31st, 2012
1:35 pm
“Sometimes, you have to wonder if the uber-brains in the Obama administration/re-elect team are so bored with merely running the country that they try to challenge themselves by making matters more difficult than need be.”
Kyle–I fixed your typo below:
Sometimes, you have to wonder if the uber-brains in the Obama administration/re-elect team are so bored with merely RUINING the country that they try to challenge themselves by making matters more difficult than need be.
You’re welcome.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
1:37 pm
GT: “For those that don’t like it, there is always the freedom to not participate in such activity in their own lives.”
But not the freedom not to pay for it. Which is a form of participation. We’re not talking about legalizing these products. We’re talking about forcing people to pay for them.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
1:38 pm
joe: Ha!
JohnnyReb
January 31st, 2012
1:41 pm
This is another example of not believing anything, and I mean anything that Obama utters and instead watch what he does. You can when he is lying, his lips are moving.
Meanwhile, Obama has been crowned the most divisive president in our history. A new book from a UCLA professor states the whole country would vote “red” if not for media bias. The Leftie media of course denies the work.
And, Charles Murray’s new book states the economic division is not for the reasons the Occupy crown and the Left state. It’s more due to a breakdown in family and values among the middle class. Interestingly, he only used White working class in his study to avoid the Left howling of racisim. Another example of PC taking the country to hell.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
1:41 pm
Redneck….And?
redneckbluedog aka xxxx@gmail.com
January 31st, 2012
1:42 pm
Nothing directly polygamist, there…..
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
1:42 pm
redneckbluedog: You need to post an excerpt, a link and an attribution, not an unattributed C&P job. Thanks.
redneckbluedog aka xxxx@gmail.com
January 31st, 2012
1:42 pm
Doesn’t appear that the Mormons have a problem with birth control….
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
1:43 pm
My apologies….
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
1:45 pm
Yeah, ’cause we wouldn’t want married couples to love and be loyal to one another, do we, redneckbluedog?
Jefferson
January 31st, 2012
1:45 pm
The health care act can be improved all along the way, to stonewall against reform is what has led to the ever increasing costs. May things better, nothing stays the same.
pat
January 31st, 2012
1:50 pm
Christian bashing. The last accepted form of bigotry left in this country. Why? Because the media supports it.
Anyhow, the church will not bend on the issue, further, it goes beyond contraception and abortificants, the mandate includes the insurance plans require abortion services as part of the coverage. The church won’t budge, it will go to court, that obama will lose.
What a jerk.
Jefferson
January 31st, 2012
1:52 pm
Just because the a health plan covers these items does not mean an individual has to use them. It would be worse to need them and not be covered.
JohnnyReb
January 31st, 2012
1:53 pm
The Obamacare debate is an example of the Republican establishment screwing up again. They ran McCain against Obama and now Romney who lost to McCain. Romney has no defense for his position of Obamacare being different from the MA law he helped put in place. He will state it’s a states right issue. It’s not. There is no difference between the Federal Government putting the mandate in place versus a State putting it in place. A mandate to purchase healthcare insurace is unconstitutional whether required by the feds or the state.
If you are a Republican, you should be very concerned that Romney will likely be the nominee. At worse he will loose to Obama. At best, he is a RINO and will not effectively undo the Progressive transgressions as doing so would be one hell of a fight and he is not up to it. Newt has so much baggage he can’t be elected. If we are lucky, Santorum will be the nominee by hanging on and neither Romney nor Newt get enough delegates to win.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
1:53 pm
Jefferson, there is one, and only one thing in Obamacare that improves health care.
Fixing the pre-existing condition nightmare.
That’s it. Nothing else. The rest is government mismanagement of a system that is already over-regulated to the point where it costs too much due to the regulations, not the services provided.
Somali Republican
January 31st, 2012
1:53 pm
@Kyle–>But not the freedom not to pay for it. Which is a form of participation. We’re not talking about legalizing these products. We’re talking about forcing people to pay for them.
Kind of like not having any kids, yet paying school taxes for other people’s brats?
Jefferson
January 31st, 2012
1:54 pm
Nope, your opinion is not the gospel nor is mine.
Brian
January 31st, 2012
1:54 pm
I’m catholic and don’t have any issue with this.
1. How many. Catholics have moved beyond the traditional “no birth control” stance. Most have.
2. Why should a janitor at a catholic school be deprived of the same health care as any other American
3. No one is forcing the employees to use these services, they are being given the same options as everyone else
4. Politically, there is a wide gap between catholic leadership and the majority of Catholics in the 21st century. Nearly every catholic I know practices selective Catholicism, particularly in the area of contraception
5. As a taxpayer, I fund plenty of things I find repulsive, including abortion. But it is legal, and legal services should not be denied because of religious beliefs of an employer IMHO. I don’t get to pick where my tax dollars go (except through elections) and I see no reason for my church to have greater rights than I do as an individual.
I wish abortion was illegal. It isn’t, and I have to get over it when I cut a check to the government. So does the church. As far as the election is concerned, this won’t matter much. Most dedicated Catholics vote for republicans. Holiday Catholics don’t make decisions based on their religion, and that group makes up a large portion of the modern day catholic church in America. When the catholic leadership covered up for pedophilia, they lost much of their clout.
pat
January 31st, 2012
1:55 pm
Isn’t it strange that the Bible is the only book people feel they can criticize with having read it?
Try that with any other book and you would be malined. Look at that dumb lady who was protesting Harry Potter even though she never read it. She was rightly maligned and laughed at, but the bible, nope don’t have to read it, “It just must be wrong, I don’t like what I think it might say!”
Nimrods.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
1:56 pm
“A mandate to purchase healthcare insurace is unconstitutional whether required by the feds or the state.”
Don’t let that pesky 10th Amendment get in the way of a good argument, right Johnny Reb?
pat
January 31st, 2012
1:58 pm
Brian, you aren’t a Catholic if you believe the crap you wrote. You don’t know anything about it.
The new medium for pedophelia is coaching.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:01 pm
Somali…it is called contributing to the community in which you live!
Brian
January 31st, 2012
2:02 pm
@pat
What part of my post makes me not catholic? I wasn’t aware that my faith was subject to your review. Please clarify your statement. Thanks.
Mark
January 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
Newton Leroy McPherson – I bet he just loves his middle name LOL!
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
Brian: It doesn’t really matter how many Catholics or non-Catholics follow the church’s stance on this. Freedom of conscience is not a matter of majority rule. And in any case, the official position of the Catholic church is quite clear on this.
See my earlier comment explaining how this does force people to participate in the provision of these services/products (by paying for them). No one is talking about denying these services/products — employees can still choose to purchase them on their own.
And actually, under the law (Hyde Amendment), we as taxpayers are not supposed to be paying for abortion.
ragnar danneskjold
January 31st, 2012
2:10 pm
Great essay, well done.
ragnar danneskjold
January 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
Dear Kyle, you have trapped the heart of leftism here, as the comments show: leftism is about nothing other than compelling others to live by their rules.
Road Scholar
January 31st, 2012
2:12 pm
If the religeous can’t deal with it by not requesting those nasty little pills, then they are stupider than I thought.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:13 pm
Road Scholar….I thought you guys were for womens rights?
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:14 pm
And for the record: I’m not a Catholic, and I don’t personally object to contraceptives.
I find it disturbing, however, that most people seem to be basing their opinion of this rule’s propriety — legality or constitutionality doesn’t seem to be much of a concern for its defenders — on a) their personal opinion or b) what they think most other people do/think.
It’s disturbing because doing so requires them to completely ignore that the rule plainly violates one of the rights our government was founded to protect.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:14 pm
Road: How about paying for them? You don’t think that should be a concern?
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
2:16 pm
No one is talking about denying these services/products — employees can still choose to purchase them on their own.
Jews subsidize the pork industry. (The pork with snouts, not just the Washington handouts.) Quakers subsidize our armed forces. We all subsidize triple-bypasses for smokers. Catholics have no special right to approve or disapprove legal use of their tax dollars. Tough noogies.
Also, while hardcore Catholics may have an extremely screechy lobby, they can’t even get their own people to follow their edicts. Thinking they have that much power over the voting booth is a symptom of grandiose thinking.
#occupy my desk...
January 31st, 2012
2:17 pm
As a Catholic – I am pretty sure that Obama is the devil. Sorry folks, you can go ahead and do whatever you want but leave me to my beliefs. And by that I mean that I won’t have any part in it, including paying taxes that contribute to it. It is not a question of liberal vs conservative – it is way beyond that. While I understand that abortion is “just one thing” planned parenthood does, it is still one thing that planned parenthood does. The biggest problem with liberal thinking is that it usually requires a ton of other peoples’ money and efforts to benefit a few. This is a great example.
John
January 31st, 2012
2:18 pm
Kyle,
And all conservatives…before going off on the liberal “attack on Christianity” do a little research. In 1984, the US Supreme Court ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States that the religion clauses of the First Amendment do not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious organization whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination. Bob Jones University paid a million dollars in back taxes.
Which presidential administration brought the case to the US Supreme Court. It was Ronald Reagan.
#occupy my desk...
January 31st, 2012
2:18 pm
@road – knock yourself out, but I am not paying for it – and Obama is saying that in fact, I am.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
It would be worse to need them and not be covered.
——–
Is it really such a burden to pay for one’s own condoms?
You Democrats are defining “pathetic loser” down.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
Aquagirl….”grandiose” nice wording….
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:20 pm
Murder is murder.
#occupy my desk...
January 31st, 2012
2:21 pm
@John – totally unequivolent. BJUvUS was an effort to keep hate groups and cults from tax shelters under religious exemptions. Not even close to this.
GT
January 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
This is kind of like the private school crowd. They don’t believe in public education, they send their children to private schools, yet they pay for public education though property taxes. It is not fair but the alternative is worse. I think having the church mixed in with government is one of those worse alternative too. Until you guys find someone to represent your moral position with a believable presence and stop making a mockery of the faith you claim to follow Obama will win this race by default. Your own people will not vote for the leaders you offer, a landslide is in the making. And not by a heathen you wish to portray because you don’t own him but by actually a very Christian man in his private practice with very little drama in his private life.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
2:23 pm
”grandiose” nice wording….
Why am I not surprised that sent you running for the dictionary?
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:24 pm
GT….I agree with you. But it is like this prior to every election. They pick at every candidate and attempt to uncover ever minor thing that may make him “unelectable”. Romney will be fine.
Brian
January 31st, 2012
2:24 pm
Thank you for the reply Kyle. You interaction on the blog is always appreciated, even if I usually don’t agree.
Freedom of conscience? The govt can’t tell you why to think, but it certainly has the ability to force actions under threat of fines or prison. I don’t see how the beliefs of a group (church) supersede the beliefs of an individual ( who is not able to pick and choose what is permissible to him or her under the law). I like my government and religion separate, and I want everyone to have the same rules. Where is the line drawn where religious institutions can’t make their own policies?
You know the work around for the Hyde amendment. One pot of money takes care of non abortion services, freeing up another pot of money to pay for abortions. I can’t believe you made the liberal argument there:) What kind of conservative blogger are you???
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:24 pm
Aquagirl….not all, figures it is hard for you to take a compliment!
gm
January 31st, 2012
2:25 pm
Ernest T. Bass
How many boys have been molested by the Catholic Priest?
How many catholics are backing newt, 3 times adultery? Catholics are in no position to judge anyone””’
Brian
January 31st, 2012
2:25 pm
And I forgot to amke my point- I don’t think this is a game changer at all
ragnar danneskjold
January 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
Dear John @ 2:18, agree re Bob Jones. Since the institution is effectively non-profit anyway, did not that ruling actually simplify their filings? Somehow comparing doctrines of the Catholic church to those of a splinter evangelical group seems almost as silly as comparing the court of 1984, intellectual midgets and living breathing Constitution built on shifting sand , to the court of 2012 with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and a Constitution built on unmoving rock.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:27 pm
gm….I am not Catholic but your continuous ignorant posts simply make everyone on the blog more dumb for reading them.
ragnar danneskjold
January 31st, 2012
2:28 pm
Also, Dear John @ 2:18, surely you read last week’s ruling on the Texas redistricting? A sea change is underway.
John
January 31st, 2012
2:28 pm
@#occupy my desk…,
BJU is not a hate group…it’s a religious based private college (similar to a religious base private hospital). Both are private businesses run by religious institutions. By BJUvUS, the Supreme Court ruled Bob Jones University is not exempt from the law, even when it came to their deeply help religious beliefs.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:28 pm
Aquagirl: We’re not talking about tax dollars here. Whatever one thinks of those examples, this is worse because it’s at a much closer level.
But on that note, and even though I do like me some sausage and bacon, I’m completely fine with ending subsidies to hog farmers.
ragnar danneskjold
January 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
Dear gm @ 2:25, given the pervasive democrat defense of the serial rapist/adulterer Bill Clinton, how can any democrat sit in judgment of anyone?
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
John: If you equate the right to freedom of religion to the right to receive a tax break, I don’t think you and I are ever going to agree about much of anything.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
Kyle….then watch what happens to the price of pork at your local Kroger.
Richard
January 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
Kyle,
I missed the part where Catholics are required to purchase contraceptives.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
GT: “They don’t believe in public education”
That’s not the same thing as wishing to send their kids to a different kind of school. There may be some people who believe both, but A does not necessarily equal B.
gm
January 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
UGA 1999
Once again, point out anything in my statement that is not true, I know you can not so you try to throw insults at me, old treat UGA
John
January 31st, 2012
2:33 pm
Kyle,
A private hospital is not a religious institution, is it? Can AJC or any private company decide to be religious base and then claim no laws can touch them if it’s against their belief?
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
Brian: Tell me what “right” an individual is losing if religious groups are exempted from this rule. I don’t believe anyone has a right to have their choices subsidized by everyone else.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
gm….it is the fact that you use generalities to show flaws in an entire religion. Then you say that they have no rights. Come on man, you know better.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
John…YES!! Many of them are!
Hillbilly D
January 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
Seems like everybody in the Presidential race is hell bent on self-destructing.
Richard
January 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
Let me add this: You seem to be saying that since the First Amendment doesn’t let the govt favor a religion, then they are violating it because they are requiring contraceptives to be financially covered by health insurance policies. I don’t see how those are related.
Had the government been requiring their use, I’d agree with you. If the government was subsidizing Christmas trees, you’d have a case. But here, the government is requiring that a non religious item be covered by insurance policies and people still don’t have to get them. I’m not sure I understand how this in in violation of the First Amendment.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
Richard, you’re either intentionally dense or it just comes naturally. Educate yourself, then come back and try again. Then we can laugh WITH you instead of AT you.
gm
January 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
ragnar danneskjold
I agree, Clinton was adultery, had he done this his first term dem would never elected him to a second, you hypocrites know Newt dirt, immoral character but you close your eyes, and still vote for him, you people give faithful christians a bad name.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:38 pm
Hillbilly D….Including Obama…he has been self-destructing for over three years.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:39 pm
Now I remember why the Obamacare debate was so frustrating. Too many people not understanding what they’re talking about.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
2:39 pm
even though I do like me some sausage and bacon, I’m completely fine with ending subsidies to hog farmers.
OMG, this man is anti-bacon. LUNATIC!!!!
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:41 pm
Richard: You seem to have read only snippets of the First Amendment.
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:43 pm
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
John
January 31st, 2012
2:48 pm
@Kyle Wingfield,
Does that mean polygamy is legal in this country? By banning polygamy, aren’t we prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Kyle Wingfield
January 31st, 2012
2:49 pm
Contraceptives are prohibited by Catholic doctrine (as I understand it; again, I’m not a Catholic). Forcing the Catholic church to subsidize the purchase of contraceptives for its employees is de facto forcing the church’s leaders and members to violate their doctrine of faith — i.e., their free exercise of religion.
There is no equivalent “right” being violated when the church does not subsidize the purchase of contraceptives for its employees, even if those employees are not Catholics or do not follow Catholic doctrine completely.
Ayn Rant
January 31st, 2012
2:50 pm
What’s the sense of a health care plan that doesn’t cover “sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacients”? Responsible, moral people need these things to avoid the grave sin of bringing unwanted children into the world.
Does the Church fear that celibate priests and the sexually-active laity will be tempted to use reproduction management aids just because these are covered by the health care plan?
The real outrage on this issue is the preposterous, outdated Catholic dogma on sex and family: that young people should abstain from all sexual acts before marriage, even though the average age for marriage is 27; that contraceptives should never be used in any circumstance; and, that a woman’s pregnancy should be managed by priests, politicians, lawyers, and judges, rather than the pregnant woman.
Do you know that contraceptives were banned in the state of Connecticut until 1965? Do you know that Republican candidate Santorum proposes a national ban on contraceptives?
John
January 31st, 2012
2:51 pm
Again…a private company is not a religion.
Brian
January 31st, 2012
2:51 pm
It’s not a “right” that an individual is losing. It is an extra benefit that religious institutions get via a form of collective bargaining.
If religous groups can exempt themselves from paying for goods or services under the flag of religious freedom, why can I decide that I want those same rights based on my own freedom of conscious?
Religion and government don’t mix well. I want my government out of my religion and I want my religion out of my government. It is a delicate balancing act and it’s full of grey areas where I have to make difficult choices. I respect opinions on both sides because it isn’t a black and white issue. There is a middle ground between governmental tyranny and complete religious freedom. On one side, you have people that want religion to answer to no one. On the other side, you have people don’t want religion within 1000 miles of govt policy. This has led to a fight that is taking place between the 45 yard lines (aka ball not moving much in either direction). Neither side is happy, which usually means that things are in balance and no one is being oppressed.
Grazerizbk
January 31st, 2012
2:55 pm
I have seen coverage of this non-story on fox and other conservative news outlets. It’s simple pandering to a waning cross-section of America and I anticipate it will fizzle out – just like the birther smear campaign.
All Americans should welcome and encourage a true debate on health rights vs theocratic values.
Furthermore, would any conservative feel so kind as to produce some stats on the success of abstience programs in Red states?
John
January 31st, 2012
2:56 pm
Enter your comments here
John
January 31st, 2012
2:57 pm
Kyle,
Can you explain how banning polygamy is not a violation of the 1st amendment but including contraception in health insurance is?
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
2:58 pm
John….Polygamy is illegal…..contraception is not. EASY!
Hillbilly D
January 31st, 2012
3:00 pm
Kyle @ 2:49
Well said.
John
January 31st, 2012
3:01 pm
UGA 1999,
That’s the point UGA…why is it illegal? According to Kyle and other conservatives’ interpretation of the 1st amendment, making polygamy illegal is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:02 pm
“But here, the government is requiring that a non religious item be covered by insurance policies and people still don’t have to get them. I’m not sure I understand how this in in violation of the First Amendment.”
Richard, this issue for me isn’t one of requirement and being unConstitutional (although in my mind it is), my issue is with the stupidity of the ruling. Just how is mandating something like birth control devices and methods in coverage going to bring the cost of health care down? And isn’t that the main argument for Obamacare?
My other issue is with a government agency being used to send down yet another edict on how some private company does their business. Didn’t those of use who were against this disaster warn you that this “unelected bureaucrat” nonsense was going to happen?
And it did.
Grazerizbk
January 31st, 2012
3:04 pm
One more thing…why is it that conservatives advocate government tax breaks, recognition, etc when it comes to a lifestyle that is pure choice (ie institutionalized religion)?
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
3:06 pm
The real outrage on this issue is the preposterous, outdated Catholic dogma on sex and family
And the idea they should be able to pick and choose what coverage to offer, based on theological meanderings.
The Catholic Church ditched one hospital because they performed an abortion to save the life of the mother. The preferred Catholic result would have been a dead mother and a dead fetus, praise Jesus! These are not people with whom you can reason.
Frankly, they can kvetch and moan but keeping these fetus-worshippers away from healthcare mandates—-I say h3ll to the yes Mr. President. I didn’t vote for Obama but this next election may be a different story.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:06 pm
John….it is a violation of the constitution of marriage.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:09 pm
UGA, you may be right that polygamy violates SOME belief’s view of marriage, but it IS a violation of the 1st Amendment to ban polygamy. Sorry.
Brian
January 31st, 2012
3:15 pm
I have an honest question that I would like to know the answer to. Should a religious owner of a private business (lets say he is catholic) get a similar exemption from covering certain services for his employees (either now or under obamacare in 2014) as the church is seeking now?
I’m not asking to prove a point. I’m asking because I don’t know.
Grazerizbk
January 31st, 2012
3:18 pm
I got an idea.
How about the outspoken critics of this policy go to their local priest for medical treatment as a form of boycott and the rest of us who are normal continue to go to doctors and nurses?
In time…I believe the debate will resolve itself.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:19 pm
Tiberius….No it is not. If a religion said that having sex with a 2 year old was part of their religion. Do you feel that a person in the religion should not be held responsible if they molest a child?
John
January 31st, 2012
3:20 pm
UGA 1999,
What is the constitution of marriage?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 31st, 2012
3:22 pm
Aahhh, the heathens are raging today.
Now I remember why the Obamacare debate was so frustrating. Too many people not understanding what they’re talking about.
How do you think we got obozo?
JohnnyReb
January 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
All one has to do is read this thread to see a clear example of how government, especially the current administration, is dividing our nation. Pitting neighbor against neighbor in the failed attempt to promote social justice. If government was not trying to control every aspect of our lives we would not be having the debate. Make no mistake. Obamacare is NOT about giving health insurance to all. It is about taking from one to give to another that which he is not willing to earn for himself.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
UGA, there is a difference between consensual relationships between adults, and forcing yourself on a child.
You argument is ridiculous. You should know better, but your religious dogma blinds you to that which you don’t agree with, rather than that which is illegal.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:25 pm
John…I suggest you research.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
3:25 pm
a violation of the constitution of marriage.
Well, just declare there’s a “constitution of marriage” containing whatever you think should be in there, and presto! Argument won! Life as a con is so simple.
Unfortunately once they get out of their own head it’s a little more treacherous since real people in the real world get uppity and don’t conform to your random declarations. That must be a bitter disappointment.
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:25 pm
Tiberius….”religious dogma” now that is funny! Molesting a child is illegal as well as polygamy. NEXT!
UGA 1999
January 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
Institution of Marriage….ok ok my bad.
John
January 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
UGA 1999,
Thanks for making our point. The interpretation Kyle and other conservatives are making would mean we could not make any laws that goes against a religious belief whether that be child molestation, virgin sacrifices, polygamy, etc.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
3:31 pm
UGA, molesting a child is illegal because it is against CHILD.
Please make the case against polygamy based on consenting adults.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:32 pm
Kyle, You left out an important point, which is that until Obamacare was passed, employers were not required to provide health care insurance (or pay a fine). The reason that health care benefits were offered by employers was due to govt. meddling in the free market (wage controls) decades ago. About 60-65% of employees under 65 yrs. old receive health care insurance from employers.
Employer-provided benefits are NOT entitlements. They are privileges, not rights.
Not only does Obamacare mandate that everyone must have health insurance or pay a fine, but it also mandates that employers must provide health insurance or pay a fine. It also mandates that health insurance must be comprehensive, covering contraceptives, sterilization & abortions.
Obamacare is the most over-reaching & unconstitutional law ever passed in the history of our country. It totally violates Article I, “Congress shall make no law respecting…religion…prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:36 pm
Who said that polygamy is illegal? The liberals want to change the definition of marriage, which currently is very simple. Liberals don’t want to discriminate & must include changes in gender as well as number, age, etc. in their new definition.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
Liberals don’t want to discriminate
And in ConLand that’s what makes them such horrible people. Yeah, we get your worldview Linda.
BW
January 31st, 2012
3:50 pm
Kyle….you’re digging deep on this one man I gotta admit…don’t trust that Romney will defeat the worse President ever huh?
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
Aquagirl@2:50, Wouldn’t the govt. requiring the addition of condoms in vending machines be a little less expensive & painful than abortions?
Maybe I missed it. When did morality become preposterous & outdated?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
Ayn Rant: What’s the sense of a health care plan that doesn’t cover “sterilization, contraceptives, and abortifacients”? Responsible, moral people need these things to avoid the grave sin of bringing unwanted children into the world.
——–
Stupidity on your part does not create an obligation on my part. Want some contraceptives or to kill your unborn child? Have at it, on your own dime.
Pathetic.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
3:59 pm
Aquagirl@3:46, So, you agree that liberals don’t want to discriminate. If it feels good, do it. So, what is your new definition of marriage? Don’t be timid.
Jefferson
January 31st, 2012
4:03 pm
The subsidy is for the non catholics, its the law and a good one.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:04 pm
Aquagirl, While you are at it, when does life begin? Can you abort before or after 6 months? When is that magic life date? 3, 6 months? If a baby is born a month or two before the due date, can you still kill it? Does it have anything to do with the date of the baby shower?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
4:10 pm
Linda, why do YOU get to determine what the definition of marriage is for two (or more) consenting adults?
Or for that matter, why does the government?
Otis P Buffufnick
January 31st, 2012
4:12 pm
I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to point out where the federal government gets the authority to require an individual to purchase a product or service….anyone?
Inside Out
January 31st, 2012
4:17 pm
If the Catholic church is so hell bent on holding the moral highground then it should turn over the files on EVERY PREIST that has been accused of molesting a child so that they can be prosecuted.
Aquagirl
January 31st, 2012
4:22 pm
Goodness, Linda, you sure are full of questions today. I’m half expecting “why is the sky blue?”
I think marriage (in the civil sense) should be between two legally consenting adults. I know you cons can’t differentiate between adults, children, and pet rocks, but that’s your problem.
I can ‘t condone polygamy. That’s not because of morality, frankly if you are insane enough to want 3, 5 or 15 spouses, have at it. It’s your cross to bear. But I don’t see any way to make polygamy work with our current legal system. If you’re knocked in the head and on life support, 8 divergent opinions on what to do isn’t going to work. Same with social security (who gets it?) and a whole host of other things.
In short Linda, I don’t have the idea I should dictate other people’s lives for them—unlike you and about a million other cons who think you’re god on earth.
If you want entertaining thoughts on abortion, ask a Catholic. My personal thoughts are not (and should not) be the deciding factor on the subject. If you want to play little tin god and decide when life begins, please seek treatment for your narcissistic personality disorder.
Now, Linda, my question for you….what makes you so important that you think your ideas should be the last word on these things? What do you use to keep that massive ego inflated? Hot air? Helium? Inquiring minds want to know.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:27 pm
Catholics will be the hardest hit by these mandates because they probably have the most employees & also because they are the most charitable religious group who minister to everyone with their numerous colleges, universities, etc.
HOWEVER, all the major religions in the US agree that abortion is immoral.
(Atlanta’s Emory is part of the Methodist heritage.)
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
Tiberius@4:10. I did not write or vote on the Defense Of Marriage Act, but that is one of the few opinions of Obama that I agree with.
The Blatant Lie That Can Be Heard All Over The World (that “everybody hates Obama” )
January 31st, 2012
4:33 pm
The administration declared that all employer health-insurance plans will have to cover sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.
********************************************************
The key word is cover.
That does not sound like a threat or a mandate.
It sounds like ITS A CHOICE.
You take it or leave it.
Duh!
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
4:34 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
1:45 pm
Yeah, ’cause we wouldn’t want married couples to love and be loyal to one another, do we, redneckbluedog?
————————————
So, when you talk about married “couples” in reference to the LDS faith (Doctrine and Covenenants Section 132) are you talking about ALL “marital sealings” or just the first, since after the second, that would be more than a “couple”..????
The Blatant Lie That Can Be Heard All Over The World (that “everybody hates Obama” )
January 31st, 2012
4:37 pm
@Inside Out
January 31st, 2012
4:17 pm
If the Catholic church is so hell bent on holding the moral highground then it should turn over the files on EVERY PREIST that has been accused of molesting a child so that they can be prosecuted.
***************************************************************
Catholics are hypocrites.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 31st, 2012
4:41 pm
ALL.
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
4:49 pm
Dusty
January 31st, 2012
4:52 pm
People,
The moment of truth has gone. Go upstairs and read Milton Friedman.. New subject.
JDW
January 31st, 2012
4:52 pm
So let me get this right…everyone here, Kyle included, has their panties in a wad ’cause The Administration says all EMPLOYERS have to offer baseline services in the health plan for EMPLOYEES. O’my the injustice of not allowing employers to discriminate against thier employees! ‘Cause we know Catholic hospitals would never employ people that don’t support their opposition to completely legal services.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:53 pm
Aquagirl@4:22, In essence, you think one new form of marriage is okay because it’s simpler than another form of marriage because it’s too complicated. Maybe polygamists can decide on life support & social security benefits the same way they decide on what to cook for dinner: vote.
The only “problem” I seem to have from liberals’ points of views is that I am a Christian. I actually believe in God & what he taught. If I disagreed with God or the Bible, you would call me a hypocrite.
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:02 pm
Linda
January 31st, 2012
4:53 pm
—————————–
You are referring to 1 Timothy 3:2..?
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:05 pm
Not to mention the Morrill Act, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act…
JDW
January 31st, 2012
5:10 pm
@Linda…”The only “problem” I seem to have from liberals’ points of views is that I am a Christian. I actually believe in God & what he taught. If I disagreed with God or the Bible, you would call me a hypocrite.”
So that means that you support….
-My right to sell my children into slavery should I so choose… Exodus 21:7
-The practice of executing all those that work on the Sabbath… Exodus 35:2
-The cancelation of the Super Bowl since, touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean… Leviticus 11:7
After all we must follow the instructions to the very letter mustn’t we. Thinking for oneself is just not a part of the program
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:15 pm
JDW
January 31st, 2012
5:10 pm
—————————–
I did not know you could do all that…!!! But I bet a lot of that stuff is illegal, however……
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:16 pm
I too, am a proud Christian, and I also fancy myself quite the law-abiding citizen…
Rafe Hollister
January 31st, 2012
5:28 pm
Maybe this will put an end to all the Libs constantly remarking that Romney will lose because the southern rednecks can never vote for a Mormon.
That is right they will prefer a chameleon, a professed Christian who has a war on religion, governs as a secularist, and leaves the impression in the middle east that he is one of them, an Islamist. His actions do not give any clue as to his true beliefs, just speculation.
I think they will go with the Mormon.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
5:36 pm
I don’t want to get into a deep debate with liberals regarding the Bible, but if you have questions, you are invited to any church, including mine, on Sunday & every Sunday after that. God calls homosexuality an abomination. That pretty much sums it up.
Linda
January 31st, 2012
5:37 pm
……& he’s traveled all over the world, but never to Israel…….
John
January 31st, 2012
5:54 pm
@Linda 5:36pm,
“God calls homosexuality an abomination. ”
When did God call homosexuality an abomination? Did he give a speech somewhere and said that? Did he release the speech to the press?
Thomas Avery Blair EA
January 31st, 2012
5:55 pm
I affirm my personal belief that should Obama not succeed in his bid for re-election, he will commence a war footing against Iran and its’ allies, declare a national emergency, declare martial law and usurp the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights “for the duration of the hostilities.”
War is good business…invest your sons and daughters (or not?)!
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
5:59 pm
Rafe Hollister
January 31st, 2012
5:28 pm
I think they will go with the Mormon.
—————————————————-
I’m personally more interested in their views on immigration….and right now it looks like I’ll be shooting baskets at the house on election day…..
redneckbluedog
January 31st, 2012
6:01 pm
Thomas Avery Blair EA
January 31st, 2012
5:55 pm
————————————
You have solid evidence to support this…!?!? Because based on what I saw in the debates…It looks like Mitt Romney is the war hawk….although I’m not sure where he gets his guidance….
Linda
January 31st, 2012
6:05 pm
John@5:54, Read Leviticus 18:22 & this:
http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective
CurtisJasper
January 31st, 2012
6:14 pm
We’ve been through this thousands of times before, and I’m sure we’ll go through it thousands of times in the future before (if) conservatives ever manage to get it.
You don’t want to abide by Federal mandates like this? Drop the Federal funding and drop the tax exemption. It’s. That. Simple.
It’s funny you mention Gerson’s article, btw. Did you happen to follow the massive backlash he’s gotten over it?
TruthBe
January 31st, 2012
7:01 pm
Obama is a liar.
Rafe Hollister
January 31st, 2012
8:02 pm
RNBD
I’m personally more interested in their views on immigration….and right now it looks like I’ll be shooting baskets at the house on election day…
Don’t know what all this means, but I plan on dancing a jib on election day.
Tom(Independent)
January 31st, 2012
9:12 pm
So Romney is a Mormon and then Obama is part Muslim. which to vote for?? Duh??
DawgDad
January 31st, 2012
11:00 pm
For the right price the Obama Administration will glady provide a waiver. Just ask the unions, McDonalds, and the thousands of other organizations and institutions with waivers. This is the face of Amerika.
The GOP Are Blatant Liars After All
January 31st, 2012
11:04 pm
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being the food stamp president will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being the welfare president will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama putting more people on food stamps will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama not creating jobs will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being a socialist will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama being a do nothing president will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
Maybe the GOP line about Obama won’t be re-elected will turn out to be a BLATANT “lie” after all.
The GOP Are Blatant Liars After All
January 31st, 2012
11:05 pm
@TruthBe
January 31st, 2012
7:01 pm
Obama is a liar.
*******************************************
It takes ONE TO KNOW ONE.
Today’s Rebellion News – February 1st 2012 | Rebellion News
January 31st, 2012
11:22 pm
[...] 2012 Tuesday: With Obamacare contraception ruling, the president burns a wide bridge [...]
Johnny Five
January 31st, 2012
11:33 pm
The poutrage on this blog is beyond ridiculous. No one is telling you to use contraception. No one is telling you to get an abortion. For those outraged that ANY of your money is being used to subsidize the above, where you outraged at the Iraq War? What about Afghanistan? I am pretty sure the Bible says a thing or two about killing and war.
DawgDad
January 31st, 2012
11:40 pm
Maybe: Maybe, probably not.
I would exclude your “maybe” about Obama being a “do nothing” President. I don’t see how he could be accused of that; our main problem is with what he IS doing.
You cannot dismiss away facts about food stamp and welfare recipients et. al. just by wishing the facts away. This isn’t an “imagine” song lyric, it’s reality.
R
February 1st, 2012
12:01 am
“Yep, nothing like getting a job, keeping the job, paying for health insurance, and then finding out that the employer wont pay for meds or services due to their religious beliefs. Go Obama!” If you didn’t know what the church group you are employed by stands for … And the CLUELESS will keep marching ON.
Pizzaman
February 1st, 2012
4:26 am
As a Catholic I follow one of Jesus’ main rules: Render to Caesar…… That established separation of Church and State. So Catholics your supposed to separate your religious beliefs from your country’s laws and abide by both. It appears to me that the National Council of Bishop’s has forgotten that.
Obamalations
February 1st, 2012
5:54 am
Kyle Witlessfield is a fresh Conservative voice for our gay community…GO KYLE!
MiltonMan
February 1st, 2012
6:28 am
When are Catholics ever going to learn that the democratic party is not their friend. Thank God I am not Catholic.
Obozonomics
February 1st, 2012
8:40 am
Come on now Obozo is as Christian and a Muslim can be….
What
February 1st, 2012
8:44 am
Seems to me it’s time for God to have a town hall meeting and let us know how he really feels. How simple would that be and it would certainly clear up a lot of issues.
Obozonomics
February 1st, 2012
8:44 am
ooppps
Come on now Obozo is as Christian as a Muslim can be
Buzz G
February 1st, 2012
8:54 am
Just goes to show how much respect liberals have for people. They are the ultimate in arrogant tyrants.
killerj
February 1st, 2012
9:38 am
Well,Well,Well,you reap what you sew.
DawgDad
February 1st, 2012
10:06 am
Kyle, the editorial this morning, supposedly written from the “right” viewpoint, was far too weak in characterizing the dangers of slipperly slope we are on toward “community” trumping individual. There is a lot of history out there on the effects of leftist/socialist regimes on liberty and yes, life itself. Almost inevitably when “community” is put ahead of individual rights tyranny reigns and individuals and entire populations who don’t kowtow to the interests of the “community” are summarily disenfranchised, exorcised, or purged. All of these regimes started somewhere, on a slippery slope, ignoring the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness espoused in our Declaration of Independence. “All men are created equal” does NOT deny humanity and mean “all things MUST BE equal”; it means every person (not just men) needs to be afforded equal dignity and respect, and rights, under the law. The government telling a private (religious) organization who they can treat and how is blatantly unconstitutional, and we need to focus on restoring respect for our constitution. Sadly, I fear we are too far down the slipperly slope.
Glenn
February 1st, 2012
10:44 am
If the church cleaning lady gets knocked up I would rather that her employer covered it instead of me though medicaid or medicare . The Catholic church ? The same church that has said condoms don’t do anything to stop HIV infections ? They lost the right to talk about sexual issues years ago . How many priests need to be sterilized ?
S West
February 1st, 2012
10:49 am
I am a Presbyterian and I can tell you that as an independent I will vote for anyone running against the president. He went too far this time. This decision by the president should scare every American out there. If he can get away with this he will try anything. I will not only vote against the President but I will vote straight Republican across my ballot. Be afraid, be very afraid.
PMC
February 1st, 2012
12:25 pm
I wonder how many people actually vote on social issues?
BillS
February 1st, 2012
1:09 pm
Well this settles it — I’m voting for Obama. Anyone who can point out to clearly the miserable inequities practiced within the Catholic Church deserves my vote. They’re happy to accept federal subsidies, but don’t want to be told what they have to do with them. How many Catholics in the US adhere to the church’s opposition to birth control? How many believe as the church does that condoms don’t prevent HIV? How many of them are happy the church discriminates against women in its top positions? And then there’s the priestly sex scandals, which continue to come at us and which have been ignored and covered up by church heirarchy for so many decades. This church holds no high moral ground on which to complain about anything.
ricardus
February 1st, 2012
1:10 pm
It is plain that no Catholic, Roman, Anglican or Orthodox, can support or vote for a Democrat and remain in good standing in the Church. If your conscience allows that then you should leave the
Church.
Dresden
February 1st, 2012
1:14 pm
Kyle, you opened with this statement “Sometimes, you have to wonder if the uber-brains in the Obama administration/re-elect team are so bored with merely running the country that they try to challenge themselves by making matters more difficult than need be”
Gee Kyle, I’d rather have those uber-brains than those of any GOP candidate or president. You guys are the true problem in this world, Capitalism and Conservatism, both failures.
Gmo1945
February 1st, 2012
1:21 pm
When every priest that molested a child is behind bars then I will give a Rats A$$ what the Catholic church or any other religious institution thinks. I bet they are have any problem providing coverage for Viagria, Celalis, etc for probably some of those same priests.
S
February 1st, 2012
1:26 pm
When you except Government money(tax dollars) you get to tell the Catholic church what they can and can’t do. They get some of Gov. Tax Dollars so they have to abide by the Government policy’s. If the Catholic church doesn’t like the Government policy’s then stop accepting the Tax Dollars. How simple is that. Like the women of the Catholic flock do not use some form of birth control, who do they think their kidding. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Catholic Voter
February 1st, 2012
1:35 pm
I don’t think this is Anti-Catholic – I think this is getting more people to be covered by the government plan rather than private plans. By making it untenable to continue providing private plans, these organizations will pay fines and the government will have even more reach and power by covering more people.
It’s even more manipulative than just offending a religious group.
small business owner
February 1st, 2012
1:40 pm
I’m not getting the connection here between receiving federal funding and being mandated to cover practices that are against your beliefs. There is no exemption if the Church doesn’t get federal funding. This same rule applies to all employers – regardless of whether they receive any federal funding or not. This administration has been hell on small business (not that the Catholic church is anything close to a small business) with the regulations and burdens that have been placed on us.
Real American
February 1st, 2012
1:50 pm
The women that work for Notre Dame and other schools aren’t complaining..just the priests who hid child pedophilia from the world for decades.
Real American
February 1st, 2012
1:52 pm
Unbelievable how many people don’t actually understand the ruling, including the blogger author.
Kyle Wingfield
February 1st, 2012
1:59 pm
Please, Real American, enlighten us.
Just Saying..
February 1st, 2012
2:01 pm
Kyle, what’s your latest info on the % of self-described Catholics who concede their family size decisions to their “religious” leaders?
It’s a delight to see, in this matter, you perceive no individual’s right to make their own health care decisions.
Liberty, indeed.
Woofy
February 1st, 2012
2:01 pm
Most Catholics I know use or have used birth control and find the church’s teachings extreme. It’s only the leaders of the church and the very hard-core followers of the leaders that’ll have a problem with it. These leaders always do, as it infringes on their absolute control over their flocks.
Just Saying..
February 1st, 2012
2:06 pm
Love your incessant use of the word “Obamacare”. Tis a pity none of our elected Congressional representatives had any opportunity to cast a vote on this legislation.
You know, per that Constitution “thingy”.
I'm just a d.j.
February 1st, 2012
2:07 pm
if Catholics are adhering to their beliefs, this should not be an issue. I’m quite sure every law written has stepped on the toes of some group. How about this, the Catholic church get their own insuance company and those that adhere to the beliefs can buy from that company guilt free. This from the same group that stroked a billion dollar check to make the years of child molestations “go away.”
Kyle Wingfield
February 1st, 2012
2:08 pm
Just Saying: How does this relate to “an individual’s right to make their own health care decisions”? There’s no ban on contraceptives involved, by the government or the employer, just the question of financial subsidies for them. Are subsidies required for rights to be granted?
saywhat?
February 1st, 2012
2:49 pm
If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to provide the prescribed level of health insurance to its employees, it doesn’t have to provide health insurance at all. They still have that choice. Whether they are able to retain employess with that choice is their own problem.
Cobbian
February 1st, 2012
3:06 pm
It would be one thing if those Catholics who oppose birth control and sterilization wanted to control just their own behavior. It is another because those who oppose birth control and sterilization want to control the behavior of others.
The HHS regulations do not require anyone to take a pill or actually be sterilized. The regulations do not compel a medical professional to actually write a prescription or perform a sterilization for a procedure he/she finds morally objectionable. The regulations do not require a Catholic hospital or any kind of medical professional to carry birth control pills in their pharmacies, to write a prescription for a birth control pill, to fill a prescription for a birth control pill, or to allow a forbidden sterilization on their premises.
The regulations do create the opportunity for each person to make their own decision. Failure to include contraceptives and sterilizations in health insurance leaves those who cannot afford to have one or both of them with no choice. Refusing to include these health care needs is economic coercion of one person to satisfy the morals of someone else. It is important to note that 26-28 states now have regulations that require health insurance sold in those states to include contraceptives. Governments mandating coverage of widely used and accepted forms of health care is not new.
There are all kinds of reason why I think it is improper for the “government”, through legislation or the courts, to agree that John citizen can control the behavior of Mary citizen in order to satisfy John citizen’s moral conscience. If you really think about it, you can come up with all good reason why that is not a good idea. There are equally good reasons why citizens should not have their tax dollars paid to religious affiliated charities which permit those institutions to not just promote their faith but to impose religious tenets of that faith on otherwise free citizens.
I really do believe that freedom, including religious freedom, resides in the individual. I also believe that I am not free if someone else’s religious beliefs are imposed on me because I work for them. Worse, I am offended when my tax dollars go to support the economic viability of anyone or any institution that wants to deny me choices that are otherwise availble as a civil benefit or to deny those choices to my family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens. And that is what this issue is to me.
The conflict is a church/state conflict. It is difficult to draw lines about how to let those of a faith be free to live their faith and how to have civil rules that apply to all of us. If “religious freedom” was primary then polygamists could live with many wives without fear of the police and faith healers would not go to jail for letting someone die when an illnes could be been treated by modern medicine. We draw lines around religious freedom.
I want that line to be one that protects the core group of a faith but does not allow subsidiaries of that faith to impose a belief system on those who do not accept them. In particular, I do not want my tax dollars to be used to allow a faith to require a fellow citizen to live in a way he/she does not choose. The Catholic Church can join the society in which it now lives or separate itself from society and make their own rules on their own tax dimes.
I am a Catholic.
saywhat?
February 1st, 2012
3:55 pm
One major fact left unsaid so far is that many Catholic universities and other religion based businesses have provided health insurance to their employees for years which have included coverage for birth control and abortions etc.
Just Saying..
February 1st, 2012
5:50 pm
Yes, Kyle, certainly contraceptive subsides are required, for individuals to have meaningful equal access to family planning medications. If a custodian is employed by a Catholic church, why would you think there’s equal treatment in requiring him to pay out of pocket for contraceptives, if custodians employed by a Unitarian church have the identical purchase subsidized?
And honestly, I do believe parents have the exclusive prerogative to decide weather it’s best for them to have 2 or 22 children. Notwithstanding their employer’s ideological beliefs.
Just Saying..
February 1st, 2012
6:03 pm
Really, the more responses I read about this topic, it would appear that the largest gap is in certain religious “leaders” admitting reality. And acknowledging limits on their authority to control the lives of others.
Maybe it’s ego that’s the last to go…
J
February 2nd, 2012
6:47 pm
Think about the brothers and sisters you would have had, if your parents hadn’t used so much contraception.
A contraceptive mentality toward sex makes sex less enjoyable.
A 48 year old woman I know who died from a stroke, from 30 years of oral contraceptive usage.
Always using contraceptives, year after year, just doesn’t lead to happiness. You’ll be happier if your sex life is open to children.
Sex without contraception is true lovemaking.
Following the “moral rules” leads to more happiness – and better lovemaking.
And the Buddhists are against contraception too, though for different reasons. It’s a way to learn some discipline, say the Buddhists. It’s a way to make sex into true lovemaking, open to life, which is much more exciting, say the Catholics.
Junior Samples
February 3rd, 2012
10:33 am
saw where obama was quoting scripture at the national prayer breakfast. must be an election year for sure lol. after being in jeramiah wright’s church for 20 years i never would have imaged that he knew anything about the bible.