jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (22 posts)

just in case you don't understand the view of "religious liberty"...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago

    Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, blasted the news as a “profound violation of religious liberty.”

    “The reality is that the HHS mandate forces women like me to violate our consciences by paying a premium to an insurer who will then provide free coverage of drugs and devices that can cause abortions,” Monahan said in a statement. “At the end of the day … the mandate forces religious organizations to pay health insurance companies for coverage to their employees with drugs and services that simply violates their religious convictions.

    “You may not agree with such religious beliefs,” she continued, “but freedom to exercise one’s religion is a constitutional right and should be protected by the president under the First Amendment.”

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has yet to file a formal response, but conference spokeswoman Sister Mary Ann Walsh took exception to the White House “dumping” the announcement at the end of the week, when far fewer people are paying attention to the news.

    “I am surprised,” Walsh told the National Catholic Register, “that such important information would be announced late Friday of St. Patrick’s Day weekend and as we prepare for the fourth Sunday of Lent.”

    “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,” the White House announcement asserts. “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,” added HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today’s announcement is the next step toward fulfilling that commitment.”

    But opponents of the rule contend the administration’s reasoning – that it’s not the universities, but the insurers who pay for contraceptives and potentially abortifacient birth control medications – is nothing more than an “accounting gimmick.”

    “Religious groups aren’t following that distorted logic,” writes Sarah Torre of The Heritage Foundation. “Among many others, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has made clear that such accounting gimmicks are wholly inadequate to deal with the serious moral problem the mandate has forced upon religious groups.

    “It is the expectation of HHS that an insurance company will simply ‘pool’ resources from all employers who purchase plans and use those funds to cover the cost of contraceptives,” she continues. “By the administration’s own admission, there’s no guarantee that the funds collected by insurance companies from a religious employer’s premium payments won’t then be used to cover abortion-inducing drugs and contraception.

    “The administration’s ‘accommodation’ [of religious liberty] is nothing but an accounting gimmick that still leaves employers with objections to abortion drugs and contraception footing the bill for those services,” Torre concludes. “Those employers are now forced to wait on the process of unelected bureaucrats to know whether the administration intends to respect their First Amendment rights.”

    The White House has established a 90-day comment period for seeking the public’s input on the new contraception insurance mandates for religious employers and universities. A very specific set of guidelines governs how the comments must be formatted and delivered.

    Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing five clients who have filed suit against the mandate, does not discourage comments, but insists the White House should know better than to implement the new HHS rule in the first place.

    “We do not need any more rule making. We do not need any more comment periods,” she stated. “We already settled this with that one original rule: The First Amendment.”

    read the full article at:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/st-pats-day- … s-liberty/

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is a misunderstanding or religious liberty, religious liberty does not state that the state has to follow the mandate of a religion. For example a person would still be convicted of murder for killing his bride if she was found to not be a virgin even though the bible says that is what you should do, the law of the state supersedes the law of any religious text what the state cannot do is prohibit people from worshiping or believing in any faith, this was well cleared up in a court case back in the 50s where Mormons argued for the right to polygamy and were denied it.

      1. Valerie F profile image61
        Valerie Fposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This is the opposite, though. The government can prohibit practices that are known to be harmful without violating freedom of religion if those practices are not required by a religion- and John chapter 8 shows Jesus rather prominently pointing out that nobody's qualified to carry out any death sentence, a Christian's ability to follow his or her religion is not affected by laws that keep people from executing fornicators.

        However, the government cannot Constitutionally force people to engage in any behavior their religion specifically prohibits, and that's what this is about. The government's been trying to force Catholics to cover elective hormone use. It's akin to the government forcing kosher or halal markets to sell pork, demanding the Mormons buy coffee and booze for non-Mormons, or forcing Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish to register for selective service.

  2. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago

    We'll all be paying for abortions soon too:

    http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/pr … broken.htm

    1. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We already do in our taxes

  3. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 4 years ago

    Our society pays for the unwanted children from those who cannot or will not take care of their children.One way or another, we pay for others decisions about children

  4. ElizaDoole profile image89
    ElizaDooleposted 4 years ago

    This hub is specifically about this issue. I've commented on the hub myself.
    Save me repeating my thoughts on this one:
    <link snipped>

  5. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 4 years ago

    Doesn't the sixth commandment say "Thou shalt not kill" I don't hear them objecting to paying to kill other people!

    1. lovemychris profile image78
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do they allow adulterers to have healthcare?

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ask former congressman Weiner, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Do we really need to make this list

        1. lovemychris profile image78
          lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm, of the 3 of them, which are Catholic?  And I'm asking because I want to know which commandments violate the church, and which don't?

          Do not committ adultery is a commandment.
          So--are adulterers covered under the insurance of Catholic hospitals and universities?

          And if so--why?

          Or is it a matter of degree?
          And John is right too. No Catholic should ever fight in war, because you may have to kill someone.
          Or is it simply discrimination against women, as I believe?

          1. Valerie F profile image61
            Valerie Fposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No one has to fight in a war if they have a religious objection to it. The problem with the HHS mandate is it ignores the fact that many Catholic organizations self-insure. Those that do would be forced to directly pay for elective contraception in violation of their beliefs or stop providing any insurance.

            1. lovemychris profile image78
              lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How can they "self-insure"??
              They have to go through an insurance company, and Obama said they can opt out of paying for birth control, and the insurance company will cover it--at no x-tra cost.

              Seems they get what they want, without discriminating against women...many of whom do not share their employer's beliefs...yet still have to pay for their premiums.

              I don't know about you....but I've been a "boss" a couple of times, done hiring and firing, and never could I ask about religion. By law.

              A hospital and a school are NOT a church!

              and for the record...do you ever stop to think how much of our society bows down to religion?

              Not that I'm complaining...I enjoy them, but:

              Thanksgiving...all that stuff we have to take time off of life to honor? Find babysitters for school vacations....etc.

              Me thinks catholic church is coddled to too much!

              AND we subsidize them with taxes! YET they want to discriminate!

              1. 0
                Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh thank you for saving me the effort, I'm getting tired of commenting on these.

                1. Valerie F profile image61
                  Valerie Fposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Self insurance is not the same as commercial insurance, but involves setting aside money to cover certain risks and services.

                  As for insisting that hospitals and schools are not churches, that reflects a great deal of ignorance on how the Catholic Church is structured and run. Most Catholic schools are not run independently of Catholic parishes, and all Catholic schools, parishes, hospitals, and relief organizations are overseen by and supported by the diosceses (led by the bishops)in which they serve. They are supported by rank-and-file parishioners. So if a dioscese self-insures, every Catholic who puts money in the basket at Church will be involved in paying for someone's birth control.

                  And that doesn't even consider what commercial insurance companies tend to do when their costs go up. When insurance companies have to give away something for free, they have to make up the cost somewhere else. It's not going to come out of the executives' pocket books, no. Everyone's premiums will go up, so everyone will be paying for someone else's birth control.

                  I don't have much problem with an individual insurance mandate, but with auto insurance, we should be allowed to choose what kind of coverage we want, and nobody should force us to buy someone else's insurance. This is not like paying taxes. This is the government meddling in people's private sector purchasing decisions and limiting their choices.

  6. kerryg profile image87
    kerrygposted 4 years ago

    OMG, those Catholics are so oppressed being forced to pay for stuff that goes against their moral principles. How can they stand to keep claiming all those tax exemptions from the big, evil government? It's like making a deal with Satan or something.

    Wait... As a conscientious objector, can I get the ~20% of my taxes that will go to the military and "national security" back? I also have moral objections to corn, tobacco, oil, and coal subsidies - can I get those back too? OMG, I feel so oppressed! My First Amendment rights are being violated! Lawsuit time!

  7. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago

    ...two wrongs never make a right...discrimination is working, (rather, not working) both ways on this...there's got to be better ways to work this out, but everyone is still in I'm right mode or who cares mode...hmm

    1. lovemychris profile image78
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ummm, excuse me, but Obama did work it out!

      He said Ok GUYS...I hear you: you don't have to pay for it.

      But for you tax-paying, 1/2 of the population, created equal women...you still get to have your healthcare coverage.

      I only see one wrong, stubborn side here...and it's not Obama.

      1. Valerie F profile image61
        Valerie Fposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wrong there, because diosceses, hospitals, schools, and other Catholic employers that self-insure will be forced to pay for it. There's no getting around it by saying, "If the Church won't cover elective hormone use, we'll make the insurance companies they use pay for it entirely."

  8. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Here is religious liberty taken to it's extreme, and which American View told me was not happening....but it is!:

    Examples of these state powers are sadly already available.

    "In addition, personhood legislation bans most forms of birth control, including pills and IUDs, and in vitro fertilization. Yes, many of these bills outlaw birth control and shut down fertility clinics.   Personhood also means that ectopic pregnancies become a matter of life or death for women whose  doctors may refuse to treat women with ectopic pregnancies for fear of criminal prosecution, for example. This isn’t exaggeration or some fictional dystopia we’re talking about.  It’s happening all over the country and every time a legislative body champions this cause this is what it is committing women to.

    A woman, like Laura Pemberton was, can be arrested for refusing a life-threatening Caesarian. Yes, a hospital can waive your right to life, in violation of your or your family’s instructions, to save your fetus. Yes, like Melissa Rowley, you can be charged with murder if you have a still-born birth. Yes, your 11-year old daughter, if raped and pregnant as a result, would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term or face criminal charges. And, yes, you can be taken from your home and imprisoned in a hospital to give birth there by a method you do not chose.  The Georgia State Legislature just passed a bill in the House, after a debate involving a conversation about “cows” and “hogs” whose net effect, taken in tandem with other restrictions, will be that some women will have to carry dying fetuses because doctors, facing criminal prosecution, will be unable to perform abortions."

    http://thefeministwire.com/2012/03/what … JM.twitter

    1. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hogwash. The idea that a fetus is a person is not limited to religion.

      Now the law on the books is that anyone who is mentally competent can refuse any medical procedure. But in the case of a patient whose mental status is altered, standard procedure is to assume, in absence of any advanced directives, that the patient would want the medical care. If the patient behaves in a dangerous manner, yes, law enforcement will get involved, too. No woman would get arrested just for refusing a C-Section.

      It's also utter nonsense to accuse anybody of murder for a death that's ruled as due to natural causes. The only way a stillbirth can be ruled a murder is if it was intentionally caused.

      But sad to say it's not the first time someone's resorted to lies,emotional blackmail, and fear mongering to demonize religious groups.

      Sandra Fluke doesn't deserve what Rush Limbaugh called her. But she does deserve to be called a disingenuous liar who deliberately enrolled in a Catholic school knowing they would not insure contraception so she could try to force them to conform to her beliefs.

  9. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Exactly. Religious freedom does not mean taking away every one else's!

    That is what they want to do. Impose their will on everyone, and use gvt to enforce it. IMO