The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionUPDATED: White House refuses to expand conscience exemption
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 20, 2012
A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
UPDATE: This article now includes the statement from the USCCB on the HHS decision.
To say that news of the decision by President Obama not to expand the conscience exemption for church-affiliated institutions who do not wish to cover birth control is a disaster would be a gross understatement. I'll explain my thoughts on the subject in a subsequent post.
---------------------------------
More NCR coverage:
The news story: HHS delays, but does not change, rule on contraceptive coverage
Opinion: J'ACCUSE! Why Obama is wrong on the HHS conscience regulations
Analysis: White House refuses to expand conscience exemption
----------------------------------
What can those words “fully committed” possibly mean? They have punched Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Jenkins and many other Catholics who have taken shots for this Administration in the nose. They have jumped over the First Amendment to coerce religious organizations to do something we find morally objectionable. They have given people who loved the Affordable Care Act reason for pause, great pause. They have given the Republicans a huge battering ram with which to beat swing voting Catholics over the head.
I say “they,” but the full responsibility for this decision rests with the President. NCR has learned that the President called Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. bishops' conference, this morning to tell him the news. Wouldn’t you have liked to be on an extension to listen in on that conversation. The president looked Dolan in the eye in November and said he would be pleased with his decision. I am guessing that Dolan is not pleased. He is not alone.
Here is the text of Sebelius’ statement:
In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.
Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.
This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.
The USCCB has issued a blisteringly appropriate response to the ruling, including a quote from Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association. The text follows:
U.S. BISHOPS VOW TO FIGHT HHS EDICT
Unconscionable to force citizens to buy contraceptives against their will
No change in limited exemption, only delay in enforcement
Matter of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion
WASHINGTON—The Catholic bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.
At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.
“This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,” said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”
Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with the decision. Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care annually.
“This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection,” Sister Keehan said.
Cardinal-designate Dolan urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.
“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.”
Well, my dear Michael, the
Well, my dear Michael, the bottom line is that in the long cultural and philosophical presuppositions trump even political convenience. Whatever we may think of contemporary liberalism, it is certainly not about liberty...
Corlo, I don't think it would
Corlo, I don't think it would be accurate to use this terrible decision as an indication of what contempory liberalism is, as it is much more than this. But in the way that too many today promote what the other side thinks and does, it too often comes down to drawing very broad conclusions from one person's behavior or one decision. We need a more complete way of analysising what is today's Conservativism or Liberalism. This requires more work than most are willing to do, but if we are to deal with what is happening today in our very toxic political discourse, it is work we must be willing to do.
Yours in Christ,
John David
The government should not
The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan. See that? And above where he says Americans should not be "forced" to BUY CONTRACEPTIVES AGAINST THEIR WILL? This is hysterical over-reaction, and completely incompetent. The law merely says Catholics or evangelicals or whoever cannot FORCE other people to go without contraception they WANT TO BUY. There is no compulsion to practice birth control. It is insane to read the law that way.
I though the law says that
I though the law says that they don't need to buy the contraceptives, because the Catholic universities and hospitals have to pay for them. MSW is certainly not objecting to people who buy their own contraceptives with their own money...
No. The law says that
No. The law says that Catholic employers who provide health insurance for their employees--including institutions directly sponsored by the Catholic Church and others who believe that abortifacients are a moral evil--have to pay for health insurance plans that cove these services. In other words, if the church continues to offer services that benefit the public to the public (healthcare, education, etc.), and if we want to provide health insurance for our employees, we must directly cooperate with something that we believe to be a moral evil. Our choices? Stop sponsoring hospitals, universities, etc. Stop providing healthcare to the employees of those institutions. Or act against our religious conscience to directly cooperate with a moral evil by providing funding for these services.
This isn't about trying to prevent anyone from purchasing these services. It's about resisting being forced to cooperate in their acquisition.
http://ncronline.org/image_ca
http://ncronline.org/image_captcha/15563484/1328153482
Imagine that the many LDS (Mormon) owned businesses decided that they should be exempt from covering illness in their employees because those illness were the result of choices they (LDS) find morally wrong, drinking caffeine, smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages. They should not be required to provide insurance for disease which result from these prohibited choices. Morman's own Marriott Hotels, many many other corporate interests- Catholics are note entitled to special dispensation from the Federal Government for a significant and personal area of health care.
"...faith based communities
"...faith based communities which promote healty communities and serve the common good." And just who is going to decide which communitie are healthy and promote the common good? Dolan has been "had" and not only he. At least some voters will remember this on November 6. Another reason why I am alwys giving out my free, two-word piece of advice, "Vote Republican".
Planned Parenthood wins a
Planned Parenthood wins a hugh round under the this Administration. This development should not be a surprise to anyone, least not those involved in catholic healthcare who labored so hard to pass Obamacare. It is amazing that it has not revealed itself sooner, looks like the Bishops may have had it right all along!
If 'truthfulness is a
If 'truthfulness is a distraction' to you vote republican. If you are in the one per cent with a vegetating conscience vote republican. How forty plus per cent of America can vote republican defies reason. The republican party does not care about health care, does not promote the general welfare, and is controlled by delusional people of the hard right. The republican party of today is dominated by the fundamentalist religious right/crazies of the southern states and the nutcases of the tea party. If these trends are you vote republican.
The republican party, a minority party must deceive common folks into thinking that it has their interests, which is nonsense. Another scam is that the republican party is against abortion...that is a vote getting ruse too. The republican party are bottom liners, pro Wall St., stock holders, and executive stock options...all else is just crazy thinking. The GOP is not the party of Eisenhower, Ford, or Jack Kemp, but has ebbed and flowed from the American ideal to the systematice destruction of our heritage. The Roman Republican Church is no different.
Wow! That's a mouthful!!
Wow! That's a mouthful!! However, I would take issue with anyone who thinks the Republican party is "pro-life." They are not ProLife.
They do speak against abortion at every mic around, however, pro-life, they are not.
Most republicans are pro-guns which promote violence at best;
most republicans are pro-death penalty, when poverty and racism are factors behind most death sentences issued today.
Prolife? Hardly!
How about the poor, the homeless, the hungry, most of which are children... oops! Nope... let them pick themselves up by their own bootstraps!
Old? Well, now, since there are a lot of them, lets fix our broken economy with their Social Security!
Pro-life? Not in my lifetime. A careful look at the healthcare program today needs fixing, but it won't be the Republicans who do it! They will simply take it away from anyone who reallly needs it. So, ethicists... get busy with this issue and help our president to fix it. We have a year to do so!
Yes, because if there's
Yes, because if there's anything I associate with Republicans, it the common good. Your logic is unassailable.
By the same token, kosher
By the same token, kosher restaurants should now be forced to serve pork, in the name of healthy communities and the common good.
Right! And San Francisco
Right! And San Francisco already attempted to ban circumcision as not being a necessary or health action. Higher education is ( and I am not being sarcastic) proven to be of benefit to the individual and community - so will we now force productive Amish citizens to send their children to college and away from the family farm ? And war is a necessary element of realpolitik (however abhorrent) and promotes scientific advances that can be turned to peacetime use. So shoud Quakers be forced to participate?
A new test has been established for when the First Amendment has applied - "the common good" and "what science has shown" - as determined by the Government!
Where does this lead us? ~ A thoroughly disenchanted liberal.
Kosher restaurants do not
Kosher restaurants do not accept public funds to pay for their customer's meals. That makes them vastly different from big billion dollar businesses such as hospitals which are largely funded by public funds, subsidies and insurance of clients.
Nor are there professional standards for the operation of Kosher restaurants anywhere near standards required of hospitals.
Nor does denial of pork effect the health of it's customers. Denial of contraception and sterilization effects the health of the people hospitals ( health care facilities) serve.
So how long before those
So how long before those "illustrious" Catholics who sent the letter you posted to Gingrich & Santorum send a similar letter to Pres. Obama? I won't be holding my breath.
The Catholic church wants to
The Catholic church wants to take public money while denying health care coverage to its employees. Access to contraception is essential for those wishing to avoid sterilization or abortion. I speak as a former Catholic who attended Catholic schools for 12 years, a mother and grandmother, who left the church over its policies towards women and gays and its insistence on trying enforce its ideas on all citizens. There is nothing that forces any Catholic or any other person to use contraception. But in a free society, the church should stop trying to enforce its antiquated ideas of sexuality on citizens. Another reason for me to vote for Democrats. Thanks, President Obama, for trying to protect women.
"I speak as a former Catholic
"I speak as a former Catholic who attended Catholic schools for 12 years, a mother and grandmother, who left the church over its policies towards women and gays and its insistence on trying enforce its ideas on all citizens. There is nothing that forces any Catholic or any other person to use contraception."
As you say, the choice should be left to individual consciences; these mandates (notice the word?) offend that very freedom.
The mandate does not force
The mandate does not force any one to buy or use contraception.
Employer-provided health insurance is paid for by the employee using money that would have otherwise been part of their wages. Employees in the United States tend to get health insurance through their employers because it is tax-advantaged compared to buying insurance directly and the larger risk pools of group plans allow for lower premiums. Employers should not use this situation to meddle in the health care of their employees.
Amen! Thank you from a
Amen! Thank you from a Catholic female and former Catholic Church employee. The Church can easily conform-offer their employees money instead of insurance and they can buy on the free market. They need to stop pressuring their beliefs on others.
I feel a much greater threat from the extreme right to my religious freedom than I do from the governments good faith attempt to provide much needed health care to all Americans.
Large institutions by law are
Large institutions by law are required to provide health insurance in many states - so these employers will be required to provide insurance. The issue here is that Catholic employers will have to provide insurance that covers contraception (by law) to individuals who, also by law, must purchase insurance (because of the individual mandate). Individuals who purchase insurance outside of a pool, face considerably higher costs, higher premiums, and higher co-pays. This measure in effect forces Catholic institutions to either break laws, in some instances, or offer insurance plans that cover unacceptable practices. This stacks the deck against 'conscientious objection' based on religious freedom. Those who work for Catholic employers have other options to find a place of employment that offers such services in their insurance plans; the church, however, can not simply find other legal environments to practice their faith accordingly to their conscience except for leaving the country. Though the option to obtain an insurance plan that covers these treatments should be available, and from employers who are not a religious institution, it is egregious to force an religious institutions to provide them against their will. This will not hold up when it is brought before the Supreme Court. In fact, it demonstrates one of the key problems with the HealthCare law - this is why the Church wanted universal health care, where the church would not have to provide insurance to their employees by law and not go against their deeply held beliefs. Obama chickened out of a universal health care system and instead created a 'captive market' for private insurers, but then wields private insurance policies like a public good. If insurance is a public good it should be UNIVERSAL! This policy is an illogical morass of serious constitutional issues that, as a supporter, I am surprised he does not see. He has also received VERY bad political advice. Though I generally agree with many of his policies, he has been caving to the left-wing of the party lately to get them jacked up for the election (for example, why did he submit an amicus brief regarding the most recent employment case - the interpretation he presented was excessive even for those supporting the teacher) - the problem here is that he is wrong to think these are the people that elected him! Up until today I was hopeful for his re-election, but his utter lack of creative thinking and policy-making means I probably won't vote. This is sad.
Offering workers 'money'
Offering workers 'money' makes them buy expensive individual polices
And they aren't tax deductible.
The government is moving towards mandating we all pay for contraceptions to be followed by abortions, and you are worried about the 'extreme right', which is a private organization without the power to force you do do anything
You are aware that only the government has the right to take your property or even life, right?
Is pregnancy a "disease" to
Is pregnancy a "disease" to be prevented by contraception? When did we get to the point that children were equated with an infectious disease?
Thank you, Maryann. I agree
Thank you, Maryann. I agree with you. Also, there are many Catholics who will agree with President Obama's decision and look favorably on it. Some will say they are Catholics in name only. I say they are reponsible and using their God-given brains to responsibily plan their families. I don't see it hurting him at all. The same people who don't like him now won't like him on election day and vice versa.
insistence on trying enforce
insistence on trying enforce its ideas on all citizens
..
The Church is a voluntary organization
The state must be bowed down to and obeyed
The Church does not have
The Church does not have 'policies' on these matters – It has unchangeable truths.
Well said. Thanks. So many
Well said. Thanks.
So many keep quoting the First Amendment to the Constitution as a justification for allowing the Catholic Church to be "exempted" from including coverage of birth control and sterilizations in health insurance coverage. I see what the Church wants to do as "establishment" of a religious organizations right to coerce individuals to conform to a faith tenet. It is not only Catholics who could be "coerced"; it is also non-Catholics who work for a Catholic school, university, hospital, or charitable organization.
This is a lousy issue for us Catholics to use to talk about "religious freedom." It is about an issue - birth control and sterilization - that the Church cannot get more than a small minority of Catholics to agree with. Over 90% of Catholic women use forms of birth control that the Church forbids. Catholic women actually choose medical sterilization, as a permanent form of birth control, more often than non-Catholic women once they reach about age 40 or have two children. The Catholic people do not accept this Church teaching that the bishops want to use as a club to extort a special government recognized privilege to impose.
I want the Church to be totally free to teach and preach. But, I do not support the Church in gaining some sort of government "right" to force people to conform to its teachings about birth control or sterilizations. And that is what is involved when health insurance coverage is denied. I also do not want to be complicit in supporting my Church to undermine the ability of my non-Catholic neighbor to make his or her own health care decisions. That is -- creepy and unAmerican.
One other argument - Catholic "identity." My Catholic identity is not tied up in what the Church says about birth control and sterilization, nor is it tied to the civil rights of gays to marry. The Church is not presenting itself as a faith based on the life and death of Jesus, but as a compendium of laws and rules. Where is Jesus in all this? A Catholic hospital demonstrates our committment to care for others whether or not that hospital offers birth control to its employees or performs sterilizations on men and women who no longer wish to have children. Threatening to end Catholic support for Catholic hospitals really says that we are more committed to ending birth control and sterilization than we are to helping those who need medical care. Is that our message?
And, Maryann, the Catholic
And, Maryann, the Catholic Church should have to PAY for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs? As a culture, we Americans have sacrificed the respect for the dignity of human life as well as sexuality on the altar of convenience and selfish pleasure. There is no NEED for contraception. Rather, there is a great NEED for self-control and self-discipline. And, when sin enters the picture - as it surely does as we are all sinners - there is a NEED to take responsibility for the consequences and live up to our responsibilities by not killing our unborn children but welcoming them and love them. This comes from some who was born pre-Roe v. Wade. I fear that had I been conceived 10 years later I, too, may have been sacrificed on the same altar of convenience. The difference would have been that the Catholic Church wouldn't have been paying for it.
Employees pay for their
Employees pay for their health insurance either directly out of their wages or through their employer using money that would have otherwise been part of their wages. The moral difference between an employer giving money to an employee who gives the money to an insurance company that then pays for contraceptives and the employer giving the money to the insurance company directly on behalf of the employee is insignificant.
That's exactly wrong, I
That's exactly wrong, I think. The difference *is* significant. A Catholic school giving its teachers a salary, from which they purchase contraception, is different from a Catholic school giving its teachers contraception it wrote the check for. In the first instance, the agency for purchasing contraception lies solely with the teacher; in the second, it lies with the school.
Imagine a Catholic hospital paying a doctor, who buys Playboy at a gas station on his way home. Then imagine a Catholic hospital that buys subscriptions and puts Playboys in the men's rooms. Would you still say the difference is insignificant? I wouldn't.
OUt of curiosity, how does
OUt of curiosity, how does sterilization kill unborn children? You mean, hypothetical unborn children?
The Church isn't wanting to
The Church isn't wanting to BAN all contraceptives- THAT would be forcing her beliefs on others. Why is it unreasonable for an authentically Catholic employer to not want to provide something to its employees that the Church teaches is an intrinsic evil? This serves to further erode our Catholic identity.
Just how does the Church
Just how does the Church enforce (or try to) its ideas on all citizens? The Church makes its position known on important social issues, like abortion, for instance, tries to convince people and politicians of the socially detrimental nature of such things as abortion and the injustice involved in permitting it. Then the people decide whether to heed or not to heed the message, and vote accordingly. It's my understanding that that is a right enjoyed by every citizen and organization in the country. Is the Church doing something that other organizations are not permitted to do? I'd really like to know what forcing you see that I can't.
True, no one is being forced by the administration to USE contraceptives or UNDERGO abortion. But people are being forced to cooperate in providing both of these by the new mandate. It is sinful for a Catholic to do so. If I were in the medical profession I could not in good conscience comply. It's like the situation regarding slavery just before the civil war. No one was forced to own a slave, but people in the north who considered slavery a gross evil, were being forced to return runaway slaves to their masters in the south, which their consciences would not let them do.
When President Obama spoke at
When President Obama spoke at Notre Dame he promised to protect religious rights in this area. He has not kept his promise. He should not re-elected.
Notice: "We intend to require 'employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees', which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." Which means they will want the organizations to hand out literature to prove it.
Lawsuit time. If a Catholic company does not refer its employees to such services...Wow. We won't recognize our country anymore because of the fallout from the government over it.
"Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women." Read between the lines:"Significant health benefits" literal meaning is- in the government's mind is less children and more drugs for women. However, there is lots of evidence that contraceptives are unhealthy as well as when is a drug ever more healthy than what is natural? So much for an organic lifestyle. The two reasons she gives are not "significant" at its most literalist meaning.
Unwanted babies has increased with availability of contraception. Crazy scary sad stuff. I can't wait to hear Dolan's reply. It is time for the Bishop's to lift their voices, not just the USCCB.
The president did not take
The president did not take any rights from any religious denomination. There is no mandate in the law that requires that anyone who dissents religiously from utilizing any of the covered items or partake of such services. If you don't believe in it; don't use it. Couldn't be simpler.
What really upsets the bishops is that birth control, in particular, is a failed teaching and it is utilized by Catholics in exactly the same percentages as the general population. Up until the reign of JP2, it was openly taught in the Catholic education system that teachings promulgated by the church and not received by the laity were not considered to be valid, i.e., "a failed teaching".
"However, there is lots of
"However, there is lots of evidence that contraceptives are unhealthy as well as when is a drug ever more healthy than what is natural?"
Cite your evidence here. There are far more risks for women being pregnant year in and year out than those taking contraceptives.
"Unwanted babies has increased with availability of contraception. Crazy scary sad stuff. I can't wait to hear Dolan's reply. It is time for the Bishop's to lift their voices, not just the USCCB.
Again, evidence?? As far as Dolan is concerned?? He's hardly acknowledged nor taken seriously on anything he's said and done since Missouri. In fact, he's still fuming over the gay marriage debacle in New York and has yet to acknowledge that there are others particularly Catholics, who think quite differently than he does.
I think it's time for a collective rise on the part of Catholics, not only vocally, but with their pocketbooks (which is happening and seriously effecting the coffers in the church), and that is happening now but needs to continue. Dolan will be answered, Reader, and he will realize that fingerwagging on his part and the part of the USCCB does not, has not and will continue to not work, because their motives are crystal clear: More power and control over the laity, and that is very, very transparent.
Period.
Obama promised no such thing
Obama promised no such thing at Notre Dame. Quite the opposite. He said: "So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies." That is, he asked the for cooperation in extending birth control -- and the beguiled audience clapped vigorously. He went on to declare his support for a "sensible conscience clause" respecting abortions, not contraception. It obviously meant nothing. Both Democrats and Republicans want "sensible" policies on taxes, immigration, and on down the list. So much for "engaging" Obama and winning his good will by honoring and embracing him contrary to the policy of the bishops -- an action that brought down on Notre Dame the condemnation of 83 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops. He was and is the most formidable enemy of the Church on these issues, and it did him no credit to think that an exuberant welcome and an honorary degree might change his mind.
Calling Camel Medical
Calling Camel Medical Services about a broken back.
President deserves Obama
President deserves Obama credit for great execution of a political plan. The bishops were leading a campaign to get the opposite decision, and that campaign was making things a little difficult for Obama, so he turned it off. Sure he had to lie to do it, but how does that hurt Obama? What is Cardinal Dolan going to do about it? Call Obama a liar?
Maybe you're right about Father Jenkins and Sister Keehan, but shouldn't they speak for themselves? If they think they've been betrayed they can tell us.
Remember when NCR and MSW
Remember when NCR and MSW praised Obama at Notre Dame? Remember when you all believed him when he said he would look to enact "fair conscience legislation"? Well, I guess you were wrong after all.
The simple choice this November: Unless Obama is voted out those who work for the Church will lose their benefits and Catholic health care institutions will close.
Try to play Obama as the real pro-life candidate now.
Now, now, lets' not confuse
Now, now, lets' not confuse ourselves with facts. We're all about ideology, not reality. It's progressive to like Obama.
"Try to play Obama as the
"Try to play Obama as the real pro-life candidate now."
They'll be doing that by Monday, the most important thing to these people is their belief that they are intelligent, and the average pro-life voter is a backwards rube. It won't be long until we're told our viewpoint is "crazy", "stupid", "racist" etc...not only can the MSWs of the world not stand being wrong, they can't stand us being right.
Obama is the candidate
Obama is the candidate leaving open the door to informed mature choice regarding contraception. Bishops, on the other hand, would prefer their 'children' not to be able to make those kinds of adult decisions. I am not a girl child and don't appreciate being treated like one.
> They have punched Sr. Carol
> They have punched Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Jenkins and many other Catholics who have taken shots for this Administration in the nose.
Some of us believed that this administration
could only turn out this way, sir.
Though none of them will do much good, I am curious to see what Sr. Keehan's
response is, and your promised subsequent response.
What I find disturbing is
What I find disturbing is that Mr. Winters has jumped over backwards (along with alot of others here) to cheerlead and promote Obama without any attempt at being nonbiased or objective or to call him to task. Maybe from this point forward you will try to be a bit more nuanced and fair in reporting and less propagandistic. Obama and the democtrats are not infallible and without reproach. They should be ctritiqued just as vigorously as the republicans. Why not more articles on abortion to balance those on other social justice issue fronts, like immigration and the death penalty I see so often. There were alot of people who voted for the nazis b/c they feared the communists and a lot of people who supported the communists when they hated the czar. History does tend to repeat itslef. Be careful what you hope for.....
What can those words “fully
What can those words “fully committed” possibly mean? They have punched Sr. Carol Keehan and Fr. Jenkins and many other Catholics who have taken shots for this Administration in the nose. They have jumped over the First Amendment to coerce religious organizations to do something we find morally objectionable. They have given people who loved the Affordable Care Act reason for pause, great pause. They have given the Republicans a huge battering ram with which to beat swing voting Catholics over the head.
Jenkins, Keehan, you, NCR: You have all been used! You were willing or unknowing pawns in a political game. It was pointed out to you over and over but you refused to listen. Perhaps now you can see the truth: Obama played you and you fell right into his hands.
Looks like the "conservatives" were pretty accurate on this one! Sister, I hope that ceremonial pen you were given was a good reward for surrendering all you believe!
Sorry Michael you miss this
Sorry Michael you miss this one on manyfronts.
One:- The vast majority of womwn catholic and otherwise use contraception by choice. Under the church's own rules a teaching such as Humanae Vitae has to
be received by the faithful. It is patently obvious that this is not going to change and the question becomes moot. Humanae Vitae was a catastrophic mistake.
Two:- An insurance policy covers many things and none of them are forced on
anyone. People make personal choices from the ones the policy allows. There is
no violation of conscience involved.
Three:- It must be understood that there is no such thing as a collective conscience. The strongest statement on the sacred nature of the individual conscience comes from none oMostlyther than Archbishop Ratzinger who was then one of the bright lights of Vatican 2. As Pope he has not disowned his original
statement.
Why are we not able to detect the crap quotient in the devious methods these
autocrats use to try to gain control over peoples lives. Its all bull with no
real Papal Bull to support it. As it stands we all have our own personal conscience and that cannot be goverened by any absolute monarch civil or
religious.
This is not a question of liberal vs conservative, it is simply a matter to
be decided by individual conscience which no insurance policy to my mind is
in any danger of violaating. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill.
Humanae vitae was not received by the faithful and is thereby effectively null and void.
Mostly I like your columns, don't see why you cant leave this stuff to John
Allen its much more his bailiwick.
The sun has not fallen out of the sky.
Regards, TomC.
Thank you. Well stated.
Thank you. Well stated.
Certainly there is such a
Certainly there is such a thing as an individual conscience. Yet that is not what these rules are addressing. They are saying that, with only few narrow exceptions, that religious institutions MUST provide insurance that will provide contraception, sterilizations, etc. that the Church, in conscience, cannot condone. And where did you get the idea that the truth is determined by popular vote? At one point the majority of the Church had fallen into the heresy of Arianism. We came out of it because the promise held that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it (the church)." The government has NO RIGHT to impose this on the Catholic Church (or any other) much less require those under the exemption to essentially MAKE REFERRALS! I'll admit that I was pretty ambivalent about Barack Obama, but there is NO WAY that I would ever vote for him this fall about pulling this stunt. The man cannot be trusted.
Thank you for your
Thank you for your observations. Dolan should remember the "sense of faith" of all the People of God, not merely of those (read: sycophant hierarchs) who suck up to Rome. Humanae Vitae was not (and is not) infallible doctrine. After more than 40+ years, it would appear that Catholics have not *received* Paul VI's teaching about artificial contraception.
If the Church is the People of God, it would appear that "the Church" does not condemn artificial contraception.
Maybe the bishops.
But not the rest of us.
Why is it that we do not
Why is it that we do not teach our clhildren that contraception
and abortion are evil? Then we would not have to spend so much time railing against the President and liberals. Nowhere does it say that everyone must use contraceptives, does it? Catholics can still use the rhythm method and carry all pregnacies to term. Or is it that we want to dictate our beliefs
to everyone else. Not everyone who works in a Catholic hospital is Catholic.
Well said, TomC. . Our
Well said, TomC.
.
Our non-theocratic secular government is under NO obligation to meet every demand of every religious organization who wants to belly-up to the federal money trough. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to obey the same rules that apply to others who receive federal funding (tax money that comes from people of all faiths and no faith) its leaders are free to fore-go that funding and do as they please. The squawkers who cry 'foul' are just mad because they can't have their cake and eat it too. Their desire is to impose their uber-Catholic anti-contraception beliefs (their capital-T truth and certitude) on everyone via financial coercion using group insurance/conscience exclusions to accomplish it. The vast majority of citizens have health insurance via employment groups, and would have limited or no health care choices without it.
.
Listen to what they say and see what they do in trying to codify their religious beliefs. The extreme Religious Right, which includes a minority of Catholics, have become more of a danger to religious freedom than any other group in this country... something they themselves would never admit. Their pleas of victimhood are just another means to their theocratic ends.
.
As for the ostensibly 'celibate' men of the hierarchy like Dolan, and their temple police among laity, their obsessive and perverse interest in sex and the female uterus leaves a whiff of voyeurism in the air.
.
Thanks, TomC for a breath of
Thanks, TomC for a breath of fresh air. Dolan in NY is saying that this policy will "force citizens to buy contraceptives against their will". Really, Dolan? No. What is does mean, however, is that the government will not be used to enforce a Catholic rule on Catholics who aren't interested in what Catholic bishops with no moral authority have to say.
Amen! With by far the vast
Amen!
With by far the vast majority of Catholics using birth control (is 90 percent enough?) Our bishops ought to be teaching and explaining why "artificial" birth control is so awful, not trying to affect legislation or regulation on who may have the option of using birth control. That battle is over.
No one is telling anyone that they must use birth control. That is not how insurance works, you know.
Excellent post, Tom.
Excellent post, Tom.
"teaching such as Humanae
"teaching such as Humanae Vitae has to
be received by the faithful."
It was. Those who are faithful accepted the teaching.
Thank you. I am glad I
Thank you. I am glad I continued to read the comments until I found yours-- which makes most sense in response to Obama's action.
Michael, At least the Obama
Michael,
At least the Obama Administration is being honest before the election. It is attempting to be what it wishes to seem to the general public. I guess we just have to make way for a president who chooses to boldly push past us (on this issue). He believes there is no option or truth but on his own side. There is no room for compromise. Basically, he's determined to make Catholic institutions less Catholic through his policies (or through the transgressions of others).
Archbishop Dolan also got a sympathetic phone call. One can always be kind to people about whom one cares nothing, as Wilde puts it.
Thsi is in line with what the
Thsi is in line with what the Presdient has done on other areas of personal liberty - not last weekend's op-ed piece in the Washington Post about America no longer being the "land of the free"? In it, they described the President presenting himself as a "reluctant autocrat". The op-ed article focused on the erosion of rights to a trial and the protection of prisoners accused of terrorism, etc. but this latest action is of a piece with the other erosion of our freedowms. And I was always afraid of this from the right wing!
And did anyone notice the
And did anyone notice the timing of this announcement? Yes, that's right,just before March for Life,probably the biggest mass demonstration in the country. Some of us are going to remember this when Nov. 6th rolls around.
this in from the AP
this in from the AP today:
GINGRICH: "Under Jimmy Carter, we had the wrong laws, the wrong regulations, the wrong leadership, and we killed jobs. We had inflation. We went to 10.8 percent unemployment. Under Ronald Reagan, we had the right job — the right laws, the right regulators, the right leadership. We created 16 million new jobs."
THE FACTS: Sure, inflation was bad and gas lines long, but under Carter's presidency unemployment never topped 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate did reach 10.8 percent, but not until November 1982, nearly two years into Reagan's first term.
Most economists attribute the jobless increase to a sharp rise in interest rates engineered by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in an ultimately successful effort to choke off inflation. Unemployment began to fall in 1983 and dropped to 7.2 percent in November 1984, when Reagan easily won re-election.
The economy did add 16 million jobs during Reagan's 1981-1989 presidency. Gingrich's assertion that "we created" them may have left the impression that he was a key figure in that growth. Although Gingrich was first elected to the House in 1978, his first Republican leadership position, as minority whip, began when Reagan left office, in 1989.
Obama knows he can count on
Obama knows he can count on the votes of MSW and his crowd, while had he expanded conscience protections it wouldn't have gained him many votes from the pro-life crowd at all. This will however serve to energize the culture of death base of the President's party, which he much needs for his re-election bid.
Culture of death? How so? If
Culture of death? How so? If I am covered by an insurance policy which will pay for vasectomies and tubal ligations, that doesn't mean I have to have either a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. So what's the problem?
Well put. No one is forcing
Well put. No one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives. If the faithful are persuaded to reject contraception, it should be a non-issue.
Mike's not voting Newt?
Mike's not voting Newt?
"the culture of death base of
"the culture of death base of the President's party"
Bush is not in office anymore.
Who brought us profitable war and lost our jobs and health care, to profit Wall Street.
Who did the death penalty more times than any governor in history while governor, until Rick Perry.
who proved in so many ways he is no pro-lifer, while deceiving the faithful.
Bush is no longer President,
Bush is no longer President, get over it...and Obama is pro-death penalty, and has shown himself to be quite the killing machine wouldn't you say? especially when his victims can't fight back.
Who brought us profitable war
Who brought us profitable war and lost our jobs and health care, to profit Wall Street
Biden voted for the war, and pushed the bankruptcy bill.
OBama was the candidate of Wall Street money
Don't like it take it to
Don't like it take it to court.
If interested parties don't like the rule take it to court. HHS is giving a year for implementation so there is plenty of time to go to court.
Michael, you're way off base
Michael, you're way off base on this subject. If the bishops don't want their employees to practice contraception, or to have access to it through their health plans, they can give them vouchers and a good sermon and take their chances. But I'll bet there's at least one good Catholic woman who likes this decision. Let this subject alone.
The President sided with the
The President sided with the 98% of Catholic women who ignore the Churc teaching on this issu, rather than the USCCB. Sounds wise to me.
Post new comment