Senator Coburn recently remarked that the recent order by Obama, ordering all employers to offer health insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortion pills, regardless of any religious objections….is not that big a deal:
“This is blown out of proportion,” he said. “It is an important point in terms of religious liberty, but it’s a consequence of having too big of a government.”
I don’t agree that it’s blown out of proportion but I do agree on the reasons why no one should be surprised.
This was what ObamaCare was about in the first place. To place every American under the power of the federal government. To rule every aspect of your life. It’s just another power grab by the federal government, and this Administration, at the expense of the States and the individual.
The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama’s transformative presidency? The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, “Everyone plays by the same set of rules,” it means they conform to his rules. What else could it mean?
This battle is to repeal ObamaCare, plain and simple.
Oh wait, Romney is going to be our nominee…
Nevermind.
“We are all familiar with an individual mandate that was authorized by the U.S. Congress and notoriously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: the affirmative duty of persons of Japanese descent to report to a Civil Control Station. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1943). The distinction between mere prohibition and command played a large role in the internment cases. . . . Korematsu is a perfectly fine precedent: it has never been overruled. Moreover, it is the feds’ best and only precedent. So why don’t they cite it?”
See author page
How short a hop is it to 1st insist that a religion pay for abortions/birth control/sterilizations and to sooner-or-later insist that the religion – having paid for such things- MUST NOT HAVE MUCH OF A MORAL OBJECTION TO THEM?
Mitt Romney has promised to pursue a full repeal of ObamaCare through Congress.
He said that it could be very fast IF he had a Republican House and Republican Senate to work with.
He has been willing to issue waivers to all 50 states (I think Obama already issued waivers to a couple of states) but admits that technique might be held up in the courts.
Obamacare violates the Constitution in several ways;
-One, the individual mandate violates the commerce clause.
-Two, forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles violates the 1st Amendment.
-Three, the use of waivers, both from overall participation in the law, and from different aspects of the law, violates the 5th Amendment(which with the 14th amendment defines the equal protection clause).
I’d be happy to discuss any of the above with anyone, although I’ve already discussed in depth the first two.
What has happened here is obvious…Barokeydoke has decided to crown himself “King of the $h!thouse”.
Since it is such a long time until the general election, this may fade out of the public’s conscientiousness. But I have a feeling this will be a key issue when we go to the ballot box in November – and it won’t bode well for Obama.
@johngalt:
No argument from me. Remember when San Fransisco passed a law making circumcision illegal?
Oh wait, most of the MSM (except for FOX News and a handful of others ignored it) .
But wait, wisely Jerry Brown signs a bill banning such laws and saving California’s Jewish population from persecution.
Whew! That was close.
@johngalt: I am not sure why Obama has the right to exempt states from Frderal Law. Now, Obama is exempting states from “no child left behind” law. Colorado is a swing state with a Democrat for a governor and a Democrat Senate. Think there is any connection between exemptions and the 2012 campaign?
@johngalt:
The one good thing that may come out of this is that it will push Kennedy in the right direction. It may even sway Sotomayor. If so, they may throw the whole thing out…lock-stock-and-barrel.
@Aqua: Great point!
I may have already mentioned this opinion on this site—I blog on so many right-wing sites, I sometimes forget on which site I have said what: I think that this country is about the only western, industrialized nation that entertains religious ideas to influence governmental activities. But, of course, that keeps God on our side.
By the way, for those who are continuously hankering for a debate, why don’t you try blogging on Left-wing sites—you might learn something in the process.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): Your comments here show your ignorance of the Constitution and the principles on which this country was founded. A quick question, who had to bail out those other western countries by sacrificing their young men in war and treasure at least twice and part of our “stimulus” went to Europe. Maybe our founding fathers knew something you liberals will never understand.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
What conservatives ”blog” on liberal sites, L1?
It cannot be done.
They ban your IP addy forever!
All you have to do is offer a rebuttal to one of their ”can I get an AMEN?” threads and, BOOM!, banned forever.
I am glad you are here.
But more than that, proud of sites, like FA, that have an open-door policy to debate by posters on both sides.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
You appear to be a stereotypical liberal – no brainpower coupled with no awareness of that fact. The issue here is not that the US “entertains religious ideas to influence governmental activities”, as if no other country enshrines it’s populations beliefs and attitudes. The issue here is precisely the opposite: governmental activities influencing religious entities. You MIGHT want to try arguing the issue at hand, rather than rewriting the question to fit your prejudices.
Oh, and going on left-wing sites to learn something? Good luck with that. Every time I visit one, I can FEEL my IQ dropping as I try to understand what the posters are talking about. It takes real effort to think that illogically and to misunderstand absolutely everything.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Sorry. I have a little thing called a J-O-B to help pay for all the “rights” the liberal/progressives keep handing out every so often. I don’t have the time to continuously surf the net, like half the college kids and those still living at home with their mom. Therefore, when I do go on-line, I choose to do so where I can actually gain a real education, vice just knowing what the liberal/progressive talking points of the day are.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
The great thing about America, is you are free to leave anytime you want. America doesn’t
We have something called the Constitution. Check it out sometime, you might learn something. There is a part in the “Constitution” that says: (emphasis mine)
Odd, I don’t see anything in there about entertaining religious ideas to influence governmental activities. They must have forgotten to put that in there.
Obama Blinks!
Obama announced today that religious-affiliated institutions will not be mandated to cover birth control for their employees.
“Religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly,” Obama announced from the White House briefing room. “Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for or provide contraceptive services, but women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services just like other women.”
………..
………..
If a woman works for an employer that objects to providing contraception because of its religious beliefs, the insurance company will step in and offer birth control free of charge.
MORE:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-blinks-contraception-rule/story?id=15555647#.TzVyUfnpjTo
Edited to add:
People are smelling a rat:
http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=664842
@Nan G:
Obama is simply using a sneaky slight of hand to fool the unwary, and make it look like he is compromising when he is changing absolutely nothing. He is saying that the ‘ Catholic establishments’ wont have to pay for the contraception, their insurance companies will. This is of course ridiculous word play, because Republicans know full well that costs are passed on to the consumer and thus the ‘Catholic establishments will still be paying for the contraception through the premiums they pay.
We’re on to your Sith mind-tricks Lord Obama.
If you were paying someone $400,000 a year, would you be satisfied if this were his complete schedule of work for today?
Friday’s Obama Schedule
10:00 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
11:40 pm || Signs H.R. 3801 with former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
3:30 pm || Attends a fundraiser; The Jefferson Hotel, Washington. Closed to the press.
How about yesterday?
Thursday’s Obama Schedule
11:15 am || Receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
2:45 pm || Meets with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti
7:10 pm || Delivers remarks at a fundraiser; private residence, Washington
Oh, and collectively, you are paying him for all his ”work.”
@Ditto, #5:
Interesting. I suppose that would also include the practice of “female circumcision.”
@Greg:
The San Fransisco law had absolutely nothing to do with that practice which is primarily practiced amongst Islamic fundamentalists.
The now banned San Fransisco law came from San Fransisco’s gay activist community and was specifically against the circumcision of the male foreskin : They are fighting, they say, for “genital autonomy” and “male-genital-integrity rights.”
The ban on male circumcision was planned to be placed as a San Fransisco Ballot Measure in March of 2010, but opponents of the measure took to the courts to stop it from being placed on the ballots. Michael Kinane, an attorney for proponents of the ban, likened the procedure to female circumcision, which is regulated, and argued that the ballot measure would protect boys the same way. The Judge rejected his argument.
The Judge also noted that female circumcision is already specifically regulated by US law.
The S.F. ballot measure did not even address the inaccurately named “female circumcision” which is not a simple removal of excessive foreskin, but is instead usually involves the complete removal of the clitoris sexual organ and sometimes includes a surgical process to seal the vaginal opening making sexual intercourse esentially impossible without undergoing another surgical reopening procedure. The purpose of which is to not make sexual relations pleasurable for the female participant.
“San Francisco can have its proposed circumcision ban, or it can have the First Amendment. But it can’t have both.” That’s the opinion of Peter Keane, dean emeritus at Golden Gate University School of Law and a constitutional law professor.
The pro-foreskin movement continued in their attempts to get the measure it on the Nov ballot but failed. So it seems that they instead convinced the San Fransisco city Council in March of 2011 to pass the law for them, bypassing the general public.
Again, The California Legislature created a bill making making this male circumcision ban, (and others that San Fransisco or other localities might attempt,) illegal in the State of California, they passed the bill unanimously in session, and the Governor signed this bill into law.
Perhaps now the Catholic church will do better research before the go all in for support of issues that may bite them in the butt later on. Their stupidity or their wanting to help the world has made them unwittingly be pushed into supporting what they really don’t believe.
@Disenchanted: PL\Please elaborate on your post. It seems that you believe the Catholic Church made a mistake in trying to help poor people.
@johngalt: You seem to have plenty of time to express your opinion on this site—where there is little opposition.
@Randy: My comments had nothing to do with the Constitution nor the Founding principles. Your attack on my ‘ignorance of them’ is just a straw-man argument, and a way of avoiding the issue by appealing to emotional statements rather than reason.
@Aqua: Ah, the love it or leave it argument. I agree, the Constitution doesn’t “entertain religious ideas to influence governmental activities”. This idea is a right-wing aberration.
@alanstorm: I disagree. Beneath the subterfuge, is the issue of religion trying to exert it’s influence on government. I’ll try not to resort to ad hominem arguments like yourself. Trying Left-wing sites may serve an alternative purpose to any Right-winger: They may get a little of the type of intellectual abuse that you dish out.
@Nan G: I didn’t really understand much of your response. But I agree that I am glad there are some right-wing blogs—like FA—that allow opposition arguments. I have been banned from many sites—apparently because of my views.
Without question this is a constitutional issue. If the Catholic Church (or any relgion), taught that it was sinful and against natural law to use umbrellas when it rained, so be it. The government, regardless for whatever reason(s), they opposed it, would have no right to invade the conscience of a religious belief.
This whole “womens’ right crap is only that, crap!” Who ever went bankrupt for buying condoms or birth control pills? Heck, in most cases, we could get what we need from school kids, for FREE! It’s simply mindlbowing to me that intelligent women really fall for this “protections of a women’s right to healthcare.” For starters, there is NOTHING healthy about ingesting daily chemicals/hormones into the body, nor is pregnancy an “illness.”
I think most of know this is NOT about birth control. But all said, here’s what no one is talking about.
Being Catholic means “being Catholic.” What I find most interesting about this whole debate is not even the govermental power grab, but the inability to understand that, unlike what most of us never thought we would see in America, Catholic’s simply WILL NOT COMPLY. Even more interesting, this is all set to shake down in Aug 2012? Now what genius thought that through? How is going to look when all of the Catholic Leaders in America, and most likely, other religious leaders, are in jail? Unless of course, the insurrection is the goal, as by that time, just maybe, the country will get a clue as to how in danger our freedom really is under this president.
The one thing I am sure about, is that regardless of the penality, Catholic leaders will never, ever, comply. After 2000 plus years of Catholic History, maybe it’s time for American Catholics and those elite university/revisitionist history schools, to start teaching about the real kind of martydom; the kind where we live our faith despite the consequences, not invent “heavenly virgins for terrorist appeal.”
@Liberal1 (objectivity): @Liberal1 (objectivity): Exactly. The thread was about government violating the 1st ammendment ot the Constitution while you wail about Catholics trying to dictate to the government. The issue here was the Constitution is the document that provides the basis for the law of our country. You want to turn that around. It is your ignorance of most everything that is the crux of your posts!
@Liberal1 (objectivity): One last response if you can answer. For over 200 years, the constitution has existed and has been the rule of the land. Now government in the form of a socialist/Marxist President demands that all subjects of the realm must purchase health insurance or be punished. In addition, any organization providing health insurance for their employees must include birth control services in the form of contraception, sterilization, the morning after pill and other forms of contraception free. Since these forms of “health care” have been against the teachings of Christ for centuries, the Catholic express alarm and as they are able in a “still free but maybe not for long” country resorted to their rights to free speech. They demanded to be exempt from this policy (not law).
The Catholic Church represents a considerable number of voters, most of who voted for Obama during the last elections. The Catholic Church indicated that their votes were on the table. If a politician, not the government, chooses to keep this policy, then the votes may not go his way. So, oh great Liberal 1, who is so objective, how is the Catholic Church trying to control the government? It looks to me like the Catholic Church is trying to control a runaway politician who is violating the rights of the citizens of this country by violating the Constitution of the United States!
@Patricia: You are right that few are discussing publically that this is a constitutional issue except in the blogs. The MSN is not discussing this except FOX news and at the end of a few articles. I think the big mistake here by the administration is like Aqua said. Obama care was always about socialism and government control over all Americans. Obama and his staff lied to Arch Bishop Dolan in the Oval office. Obama Care on its own could have passed the Supreme Court review. Bringing in the birthcontrol mandate and the fact that this law gives so much power to the Executive Branch may get the Catholic members of the Supreme Court to look beyond the initial issues and see a power grab by one of the three branches of government. They also likely will see the anger in all types of people, not just Catholics.
Obama’s ”compromise” =
“if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”
Now, how many religious hospitals SELF-INSURE????
Arrangements in which an employer pays for care directly and uses insurers to manage benefits and process claims (not to take on insurance risk) account for the majority of the private market.
In these cases there isn’t even a free lunch to pretend exists.
Obama was last seen putting in calls to the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny to see if they’d step up./
The only reason even any of these religious organizations have done what Obama wants is that the state they are in had mandated it before now.
This only after challenging these state laws in the courts.
But many others have avoided doing it by insuring their employees with self-insurance.
It was their last back-up plan.
IF the government is going to impose radical beliefs on people who wish to take the risks to go into business, there are going to be ramifications and ripples all through our economy.
Some people will hold off.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Where do you get that idea? Abortion? This is a legitimate argument because it concerns life. Our Constitution guarantees Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The argument can be made as to when life begins.
School prayer? The only reason this is an argument whatsoever is because of the Department of Education. Because of that one act, all public schools are federal property. They should not be. Schools should be the property of the State or local government. The people of these communities should be allowed to decide if prayer is allowed or not. They should be allowed to decide if there is a lamp turned on every day for Ancient Astronauts, if they so decide.
Contraception in prescription plans? This should not be an argument either. We as a country had a chance to reverse wage and price control measures in the form of employer provided insurance and we got Obamacare instead. We could have allowed communities to join their purchasing power and buy individual insurance, from across State lines if necessary, and we didn’t. If we had, people would have the power to buy what they wanted, not what their employer wanted.
Sorry sir, your idea of freedom is not my idea of freedom. I have absolutely no wish whatsoever to impose my religious views on you or anyone else. I just want the ability to live my life the way I want without the government interfering in the process.
@Randy: First I will state I am Catholic, brought up around the knights of columbus and the daughters of Isabella. Anyone who is Catholic understands. Second there is nothing wrong with helping poor people. Unfortunately the Catholic church did not conduct due
Diligence when they supported the obamadeathcare plan. The church is being forced to provide items in their insurance that their teachings Are against. Oh yea now Barry says the church doesn’t have to provide these items (e,g, abortion, contraceptives ) only their insurance does. Yeah only someone exceedingly stupid would believe there is a difference. However I digress you only asked if I thought helping the poor was wrong. ( done on my iPad that insists on autocorrecting all the time)
I think we are on the same sheet of music. We just are expressing it differently!
@Liberal1 (objectivity): You said:
Pot
Kettle
@Patricia:
Couldn’t have said it better. I’m not Catholic, but it they do a massive civil disobedience when the ?law? edict takes effect, I’d do my best to join them .