Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Obama Admin Mandates Religious Employers Cover Contraception Cost, Catholic Bishops Furious


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 210 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 30, 2012 8:39:05 AM PST
YuuuuP! says:
The Blaze.com

The Catholic Bishops of the United States are reportedly furious over what they call the "literally unconscionable" decision by the Obama Administration to require that contraception be included in virtually all health plans provided by religious-affiliated institutions to their employees.

The announcement means that the mandate and its narrow exemption will not change. Rather, there will 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.

Dolan added, "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."

PR Newswire adds:

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."

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 8:47:00 AM PST
I don't see what the fuss is about. We're talking about health care plans, not religious texts.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 8:49:57 AM PST
dischism says:
Does the fact that coverage is provided force people to use that coverage against their conscience?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 8:51:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 8:53:11 AM PST
Macheath says:
Of course you don't. You don't believe in God and you always assume everyone else should have the exact same values as you and can't even comprehend that other people see the world differently.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 8:52:51 AM PST
Macheath says:
Obama has almost gaurenteed that he is a one term president. He has destroyed the catholic part of his election coalition.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 8:59:10 AM PST
The question is: Should a (for instance) Catholic hospital be required to offer services which some feel are in contradiction to Catholic belief?

My first instinct is to say "Yes. The fact that you're a hospital, offering medical care to those who *need* it, means you have responsibilities to your patients which override your personal religious beliefs."

But that is, as I said, my first instinct. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 9:01:40 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 9:04:43 AM PST
Macheath says:
Anyone who's ever read E.J. Dionne knows that he is one of the biggest Obama sychophants in the mainstream media and *even* he admits "The One" blew it big time here and quote "threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-breach-of-faith-over-contraceptive-ruling/2012/01/29/gIQAY7V5aQ_story.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 9:12:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 9:13:03 AM PST
Macheath says:
This has nothing to do with the services provided by a *hospital*, it's about Health Insurance plans. Do you even bother to read about an issue before you grace us with your thoughts?

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 9:14:16 AM PST
Would anyone besides Macheath care to discuss the issue?

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 9:32:45 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 11:27:07 AM PST
MarcAntony says:
The thing is, these religious hospitals take tax-payer money. If they want to give it back, they can be as sectarian, bigoted, and misogynistic as their hearts desire.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 9:35:41 AM PST
Does anyone out there know the answer to this: What restrictions are, in general, placed on a purely private hospital, one which takes no public monies of any kind? What regulations are they subject to regardless of whether or not they take in Federal money?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 9:39:39 AM PST
I believe that if they want to call themselves a hospital, no matter how private they are, and how little or no public monies they take these things should hold true.

1) They must treat anybody in an emergency, no matter of their ability to pay.
2) They must treat all emergencies, even if it means giving a woman with an ectopic pregnancy an abortion, or giving a woman whose fetus is endangering her life an abortion.
3) There must be no pestering of women whose lives are endangered by fetuses to keep them to save the baby at the risk of her own life. It is fine if the woman so chooses, but there can be absolutely NO attempts by the doctor to force or even suggest that this would be the better option.
4) There must be no prejudice of any kind towards any group. So everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, or any other category one could conceive of should be denied treatment in an emergency.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 9:46:09 AM PST
M. Simonson says:
The idea that if you take the government's money you play by the government's rules is a trap that was fallen into a long time ago, but it's just starting to close a bit more.

This is not just taking funds for general operating expenses. If any patient has medicare or medicaid they are taking government money.

Don't know what laws apply, but it all can get rather mixed up. In many cases the actual laws passed by Congress are lacking in detail in one area or another. In such a case it is up to the executive branch charged with administering the program to execute the exact and detailed policy.
There have been cases related to these types of issues. And the court has ruled that this is a proper function of the executive branch. Congress of course is always able to pass more legislation.

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 10:00:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 10:02:54 AM PST
Macheath says:
Again, people are not reading the news stories. This is NOT about what services a *hospital* must offer. That has nothing to do with this issue.

It is the government telling Catholic institutions that they MUST offer their employees health insurance that pays for abortions. For example, someone working at a Catholic parochial school must have health insurance that covers paying for an abortion. So the local Catholic parish that runs that parochial school will be forced to pay for abortions. No one forces anyone to work for a Catholic institution, people who take a job at one do so with the understanding that if they ever want an abortion they will have to pay for it out of their pocket. And if they don't like that idea, they get a job somewhere else. It isn't complicated.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 10:12:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 10:14:50 AM PST
M. Simonson says:
Right, that's why the Obama care laws "You Must Buy this product" and "You must participate in this system" are being challenged on a constitutional basis. Justification under the commerce clause is pushing things to a whole new level. But if the the law is upheld then that is the law. It will not be possible for a hospital to operate in any practical manner outside the system. Same thing goes for providing insurance outside the system.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 10:58:17 AM PST
mrs exp says:
Yuup!,
I don't understand the fury, if contraception is against someone's religious principles they don't have to use that feature. So what's the problem.
exp

Posted on Jan 30, 2012 11:01:41 AM PST
Just because contraceptives are covered under a health plan (like any other legally prescribed medication), doesn't mean anybody HAS to start using them if you don't care to. Why should anyone's access to any prescribed medication be denied to them based on their employment?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:03:12 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 30, 2012 11:21:33 AM PST
M. Simonson says:
Catholic Bishops already have this problem. Money is fungible, so if you are in the system you're in the system. If you are paying employees under US Tax Code (and you'd better be) and one govt dollar is going to anything related to birth control or abortion then one is a part of that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:04:31 AM PST
emac says:
Michael

If an entity does not take public funds or use public buildings to help offset their own costs, then, it is my understanding there is NO State Action. Consquently, unless there is some specific law to the contrary--i.e. Work discrimination--the entity is not bound by the Federal regulatons (which are merely given force per the law).

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:06:33 AM PST
emac says:
I don't think that the payor source being Medicare/Medicaid makes a private hospital a State Actor. Of course, Medicare/Medicaid will only approve what it approves.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:07:21 AM PST
mrs exp says:
M Simonson,
Catholic bishops and some Protestants meddle to much in government business.
exp

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:07:21 AM PST
emac says:
Exp

I think this is the correct way of looking at the concern.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:08:24 AM PST
mrs exp says:
emac,
How you doing? For once we agree on something. whoda thunk it?
exp

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:12:20 AM PST
M. Simonson says:
Regarding ...
Catholic bishops and some Protestants meddle to much in government business.
...

They certainly try. The level of success they have varies from issue to issue.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012 11:41:17 AM PST
emac says:
Exp

I am doing very well. I hope you have been well too.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
455 15 days ago
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light Part 2 1484 20 seconds ago
Ambiguity 253 3 minutes ago
I don't get the basic concept 210 11 minutes ago
Jehovah's Witness's 5066 14 minutes ago
We are Living in the Last Days - A Biblical Prophecy Discussion Part Six 6676 17 minutes ago
To what extent do Literalist ID/Creationists End Times fundamentalists threaten Christianity: Part the Third , Would like to change this name to how to save the religions that were established by Moses, Muslim, Christian and Jew 6551 25 minutes ago
Catholicism is based on Jesus Christ- Part 8 2659 32 minutes ago
Mary was Sinless -- Part XXIII 3950 37 minutes ago
Moving beyond atheism 912 1 hour ago
Celsus question 1697 3 hours ago
Atheists: Satan's Spawn or Satan's Pawns? 5819 4 hours ago

Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  45
Total posts:  210
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions