Religious institutions to be forced to violate their conscience.
The Obama administration announced Friday that it would give Catholic hospitals and other religious institutions an extra year to comply with a new requirement that most health plans provide contraceptive benefits at no cost to their members.
The administration, however, held fast to the mandate that most health plans eventually offer free (sic) contraception. That infuriated Roman Catholic bishops and some other religious leaders who had vigorously opposed the rule as a violation of their religious liberty. They wanted a broad swath of religious organizations exempted from the rule.
Important election-year constituents — women’s advocates and liberal groups — were delighted by the administration’s hold-the-line decision. They had been worried the White House might exempt large numbers of religiously affiliated employers, such as Catholic hospitals and universities.
Places of worship, including churches and synagogues, already were exempt.
By refusing to broaden the exemption, “in effect the president is saying that we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” complained Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Man, you go to great lengths to cry about nothing.
Still not intelligent enough to figure out what “Most Wanted” posts, which are links to articles by other publications, are yet, eh libdud?
Go whine to the article’s author instead of your false accusations here…. Hint. That requires “hotlink/click” abilities. That may be above your pay grade.
Mata, other than his continued failure to understand exactly what “Most Wanted” posts are here on FA, liberallman has shown here by his comments that he doesn’t understand what a conscience is. The fact that some people in the world have them, and do not go around violating them lightly seems to be a foreign concept to him. That alone should tell you all you need to know about him.
Mata… until your above post… I had no Idea that “Most Wanted” were simply links to other articles. Nothing indicates that is what “Most Wanted” is all about. Just color me ignorant…
Naw, Donald Bly. Not ignorant. Actually, if you noted it’s all in “blockquotes” (indicating other people’s compositions) and followed the link, you would have figured that out yourself. In the case of the above commenter, he’s pulled this before… blaming whoever submitted the news story to the “most wanted” section, as the writer. So this is the second offense.
Unlike you, he’s not a quick study. LOL
I have always assumed that since the links concerned with “Most Wanted” are always slanted to the right, they are generally in agreement with publisher’s attitude in respect to this publication. Therefore, when I comment on the ‘linked’ articles published—I also comment on these linked site when possible—I am commenting for the benefit (or detriment) of the readers and publishers of this blog also. I may be wrong, but I think Liberalmann is responding on the same basis. In other words, directing his comments of the subject matter of a ‘linked’ article to the local publisher of it because of the belief that he holds a compatible position. If anyone wants to remove all doubt as to whether or not they agree with the content of a secondary source, perhaps they should consider relinquishing their by-line, i.e., rendering them as anonymous contributions.
Just a an aside, I don’t think it’s good policy on a debate forum to insult a person’s intelligence, principally based of their contrary political views—a common right-wing argumentative practice—for not possibly not understanding purpose of a column (especially when a member of your own acknowledges his own misunderstanding).
I wouldn’t call me “One of their own”…. I’m simply a reader that didn’t know the details behind “Most Wanted” since there is nothing in print to explain it… I don’t read minds.
Mata… I noticed the blockquotes… but no attribution to the original authors … just a “read more” link…. Perhaps that contributed to my confusion.
Also… ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of… there are a lot of topics I’m ignorant on. It just means I need to get up to speed. Ignorance can be corrected… but you can’t fix stupid.