Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the Archdiocese of New York, has now publicly criticized the Obama administration’s new HHS mandate. Specifically, he has stated that the President Obama betrayed a commitment made to him weeks ago in a personal meeting. CBS reports:
Dolan said he met with the president weeks ago in the Oval Office to talk about the law. Dolan said the president gave his promise the provision would go away, but it hasn’t. “It seems to be at odds with very sincere assurances that he gave me, that he wanted to continue to work with the church in these endeavors and views and projects he shared a passionate interest in, so I can’t figure it out,” Dolan said.
Well cardinal you should know according to Barry’s faith anything to progress his agenda is acceptable .
Maybe Obama is waiting for opponents to coalesce against the provision THEN he will make it go away.
@Nan G: Nan, I think your assessment of 0-bama’s strategy is correct. The MSM and the wachos will eat it up. First he appeases his left wing radical base and then he reaches out with an olive branch. Beware, there is a snack on the branch!!
I like and respect soon to be Cardinal Dolan, but this a little late but hopefully not too late. The USCCB were tepid when this bill first came out, they should have been rising up against this back then. We may win this battle but Obama has already won the war. Obamacare is the law of the land and all that crap that Pelosi said we had to pass this bill so we could see what was in this bill is coming out now. And it smells like crap. But it smelled like crap when they rammed this bill through Congress. This bill needs to be repealed, not just this conscience clause article. The WHOLE bill needs to be repealed. This is a manuever to keep our thoughts off the whole bill and to make us focus our efforts on one tiny part of the bill. They will eventually give in and concede this part and we will be happy with the victory. Then we will become complacent and the bill, this leviathon of socialism, will continue to bring our country to it’s knees. C’mon Bishops – fight the whole bill, not just this one tiny paragraph hidden among 2,000 pages of crap!
Oh, Father Dolan.
Too bad you did not do your research.
For a Muslim, lying is required.
You were lied to, in order to get your approval.
Too bad.
Zippy learned from Lucy of Peanuts how to treat others.
Sucker them.
Democrats are joining the fight on the other side from Obama……
Virginia Senate candidate Tim Kaine
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/headline/former-dnc-chairman-breaks-with-obama-admin-over-abortifacient-mandate/
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/09/senators-marco-rubio-and-joe-manchin-join-forces-to-fight-against-contraception-mandate/
Penn. Sen. Bob Casey
http://articles.mcall.com/2012-02-08/news/mc-pa-lawmakers-weigh-in-on-white-house-contraceptive-rule-20120208_1_religious-groups-catholic-employers-health-care-coverage
And those Democrats are all in states Obama needs in the fall!
This “Most Wanted” item goes hand in hand with this one; http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/wh-women-deserve-to-have-church-buy-them-sterilizations/
As a Cardinal-designate, and with what I know about him, it seems highly, highly unlikely that Timothy Dolan would lie about this, or even stretch the truth. I can, however, see Obama promising him the moon and then backing out afterwards due to his base and ideology.
This is much more than just about religious freedom, though. And make no mistake, it is a clear violation of religious freedom, specifically mentioned in the First Amendment.
US Constitution, 1st Amendment;
In simple terms, Congress cannot make law that violates a religion’s, any religion’s, free exercise of it’s faith. And a law that prohibits this, in any way, is un-Constitutional.
Some would argue that the law only affects those institutions, in this case Catholic, that are directly run by the faith itself, or primarily employ those same people of faith. They deny that a Catholic hospital, for instance, is included in the law, due to the particular relationship between the Catholic Church and the hospital. However, what those people are essentially arguing is a matter of degrees. Or, to put it simply, thresholds below which the law applies and above which it doesn’t.
When people argue as above they are conveniently leaving out that “Congress shall make no law” and “free exercise” portions of the amendment. A twisting of meanings is necessary to believe this argument. The amendment clearly states that NO law prohibiting FREE exercise of religion. It does not break down into allowable levels that congress is allowed to violate this amendment. It is plain as day.
Now, one could claim that congress does this all the time and that no, or little, objection is raised. That, though, is akin to arguing two rights make a wrong. Definitely not something I was brought up to believe. And even though that claim is true, it is entirely beside the point when considering what is right, and what is wrong with regards to our Constitution and the laws Congress passes. To accept such a thing from the government is to equate our Constitution with a set of guidelines, instead of the “Supreme Law of the Land” which it states that it is. And further, a violation of it, any violation, no matter how small or innocuous seeming, renders our country under the “rule of men” rather than the “rule of law”. When that happens, the “rule of men” can change, depending on who, of what ideology, is in charge, and what particular popular “whim” is the current rage of the masses. This invariably leads to excesses of power by government, and a lessening of freedoms.
Considering that this country was founded upon, in part, the desire to be able to practice religion freely without government involvement in religion, an acceptance of this issue by anyone, even atheists, should be seen as a clear violation of that freedom.
@johngalt:
Kind of reminds one of Obama’s pre-Super Bowl NBC interview, where he said, “It turns out that our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72617.html#ixzz1lvHRNQDS
That led the leftist media to print a rash of:
Decline Watch: Is the US Constitution going out of style?
.
The US Constitution: Too Old to be Attractive?
.
We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World
.
U.S. Constitution no longer an inspiration
.
Is the United States Constitution Dying?
The Catholic Church made a deal with the Devil…. [ Satan ] “Promised” them exemption and then took it back…
Now we know who we are dealing with when we are dealing with Obama…and Exactly why we should be very, very concerned and yes, worry about Tyranny….
Obama is a hypocrite! AND A Liar!
Perhaps churches should back out of intruding into the lives of employees who don’t also happen to be members of those churches.
As of August 2011 there were 9 states that require any employee health insurance that covers prescription medications to also cover FDA approved prescription contraceptives, and make no exceptions to that requirement. (Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington) Where has the outrage been about that?
I happen to have a friend in Colorado who had not been aware that the Catholic Church was required to buy abortion/birth control/sterilization for all its employees.
Last Sept the Colorado Catholic Conference sent him this:
http://www.cocatholicconference.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=326
@Greg: First thing you should do is read the 1st amendment again because you don’t have a clue. Seconly I agree with you, there should have been outrage then as well. Fianlly to call abortion Pro Choice is an absolute insult to humanity. Sadly those lives that ended in abortion can’t speak for themselves, I doubt they would have chosen not to live.
@Greg:
I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, or if you just fail to see the difference.
In the case of the Catholic Church against the government, the government is mandating a requirement to the church, and other religions I might add, that goes against their official stance(s) on the issue. This directly violates the 1st Amendment.
In the case of employees associated with those religions, those employees have a choice not to work there, or anywhere that violates their own principles. The employer, any employer for that matter, stipulates certain conditions to employees that they have to abide by in order to remain employed. If the employees do not want to abide by those stipulations, they do not have to work for that employer.
Those employees do not have a “right” to that particular job. Those religious organizations, however, do have a right to practice freely in this country. If that includes the current Catholic position on contraception, the government has no right to tell them otherwise.
@johngalt: Thanks John, you are gifted and your ability to express your position much better than I. Sadly Greg is a true liberal, and unless the infringement is upon his rights and those of the liberal left he can not see the value. Of course given his messiah 0-bama, the Constitution is a foreign document and a hinderance to their vision of progress towards radicalized socialism of which we have fought and died to prevent.
@Common Sense:
I appreciate the compliment. Understanding fully the Constitution, the original argument for(Federalist Papers), and the original argument against(the Anti-Federalist Papers) is the key, though. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of Americans have little understanding of the Constitution itself, and virtually no understanding of the original arguments.
Huh? Exactly how is the Church “intruding” on the lives of its employees when it declines to buy them health insurance covering the morning-after pill? Are you saying that the Church somehow prohibits its employees from working elsewhere? Or from buying their own health plans? Or from buying the morning-after pill with their own money?
Obviously, the Church doesn’t prevent its employees from doing any of those things. So your comment just makes you sound stupid.
Watch this video and the others that follow it in the series, and you’ll fall to your knees kissing the friggin’ ground that you live in America:
@JPL17, #16:
If you don’t like it, go work somewhere else generally isn’t considered an acceptable response from employers who would presume to dictate concerning personal matters totally unrelated to an employee’s performance of the work he or she is paid to do.
The government has long been setting various rules and standards with regard to workplace conditions and employer/employee relationships. Here, they’re setting a certain standard concerning the scope of coverage provided by employee health insurance. No one is required to use birth control simply because its included among covered drugs and services.
That’s ridiculous. The employer has no obligation whatsoever to change its morals or politics just to fit the personal preferences of its employees. Even if the employer wanted to do that, it would be impossible, since some employees won’t like working for employers who fail to provide “X” (e.g., who fail to fund the morning-after pill), while other employees won’t like working for employers who do provide “X” (e.g., who do fund the morning-after pill). So what you’re talking about is absurd.
And what about my other 2 questions that you conveniently ignored? Are you saying that the Church somehow prohibits its employees from buying their own health plans? Or from buying the morning-after pill with their own money? And if not, how can you possibly argue with a straight face that the Church is “intruding” on its employees’ lives?
Opinions vary about what is ridiculous–as will be discovered come November, when the GOP finally learns the consequences of ignoring the opinions of a majority of women voters.
@Greg:
You sound like quite the loyal Quisling.
@Greg:
Did you miss the part about religion, Greg, and 1st Amendment freedoms?
Greg already lost this argument on another thread. Now he comes over here and spews the same old stuff. Greg is just like those Germans who supported the Nazi take over of the German government. The American Revolution occured because of the Crown’s refusal to respect individual freedoms. Greg’s purposeful lack of understanding of current events and their ultimate resolution is typical of the liberal ideology. They can never anticipate unintended consequences until it is too late!
@Greg:
So, if they find out that pork, lobster, or scallops reduce breast and ovarian cancer by 99%, should Muslim and Jewish institutions be forced to provide them to their employees. The price of these items would sky rocket, so the only way to get them would be through Obamacare of course. But you see, it’s not about religion, it’s about women’s health. Outside of Synagogs and Mosques, should Jewish and Muslim organizations have to provide a pork plan for their employees?
@Greg: Suck on this Greg. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2012/02/09/matthews_scolds_heilemann_for_regurgitating_incorrect_wh_talking_pts_on_catholic_contraception_issue
Even MSNBC is against Obama’s mandate. Looks like you are the lone supporter except for those hard core Obama cronies!
@Greg: Even Democrats are abanding the big O on this issue! http://www.wsbtv.com/ap/ap/religion/manchin-voices-concern-over-birth-control-order/nHTSh/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-contraceptive-mandate-losing-senate-democrats/
Seems like these Democrats are making the same arguments we have been making here at FA. Maybe there are some Democrats with a respect for our country and the founding principles!
@Sid:
Conservative Catholics have been telling our liberal leaders this for a long time. I could not agree more. There is no freedom if it is given out in slices like a pie.
I think that Greg’s recent posts have confirmed who the bigot is!
@Randy:
Even John Effing Kerry is against this:
@Greg: Greg, you are so ignorant I wonder if you are still in pre-school. You lose an argument so you go wha wha wha. Your opinion of woman is really shallow if you think woman don’t appreciate 0-bama’s attempt to usurp the 1st amendment. You also underestimate the Catholic vote which has now been deeply betrayed by your messiah. If, and a big one, 0-bama gets elected with the help of the extreme liberal left and the MSM he will be looking at a legislature controlled by Republicans. Democrats will lose the Senate and Republicans will maintain the House. Talk about a lame Dead Duck!! I hope the Supreme Court will reject 0-bamacare this summer but none the less it WILL be repealed as it should be.
The First Amendment is not always black and white when it comes to practical application. Government has regularly made laws, or imposed actions, that have restricted the free reign of religion. For example, the practice of polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Over a century ago, citizens of the self-governing territory of what is present-day Utah were forced by the United States federal government to abandon the practice of polygamy through the vigorous enforcement of several Acts of Congress. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy). An antithetical policy that was as much an act of religion, as government.
Now some may say that this kind of action was an infringement upon State’s rights. May be so. But, at the same time it has been decided through the courts that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect people against law against all religious practices—such as State anti-polygamy laws. (It was)… the unanimous 1878 Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. United States declared that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, based on the longstanding legal principle that “laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigamy_%28in_Canon_Law%29)
In my opinion, our political life would be in much better condition if people kept their religion as a personal matter, instead of letting it become a political issue. After all, it was the Vatican who had a questionable relationship with Hitler’s Nazism. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm)
@Liberal1 (objectivity): It was a personal issue until your liberal bureaucrats made it mandatory instead of choice. You can not compare polygamy and this health care issue and maintain any credability. Just remember, Hitler didn’t just come for the Jews. He also came for the mentally ill. Watch your back!
@Randy: It isn’t an issue of comparing polygamy to birth control; it’s an issue of how ‘all free exercise of religion’ is not sacrosanct, according to the law: “…laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigamy_%28in_Canon_Law%29)
AMERICA PLEASE DON’T LET THE CONSTITUTION DIE, DEFEND IT WITH YOUR MIGHT, THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE, IF IT GOES DOWN YOU AMERICANS WILL GO DOWN WITH IT,STAND UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE.