The Deseret News should be ashemd of itself, for continuing to perpetuate this
falsehood, when confronted with.... *’Obama, family attend
Christmas church services’ – By Julie Pace – AP –
Pulibshed by DSNews – 12/25/11 Obama has never had a
'war' on anything. Conservatives just like to the talking point, while
taking us into Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
To "homebrew" you are wrong. The fight is not about contraception.
The fight is about government forcing a religion to pay for something that it
finds wrong.Would you agree with forcing a muslim charity to buy
bacon for those it serves? Would you be ok with the government mandating that
an athiest has to buy Bibles?At what point would you say that
government is not permitting the free exercise of religion?
This is about contaception, nothing more. Obama has not declared war on
religion. He has declared support of womens rights. Even women suppressed by
religious institutions. Funny how the GOP wants to declare when life begins,
prevent abortion, in an over crowded world, see that all these women are forced
to give birth with all other options taken off the table. Then they throw the
children to the wolves, deying them support, welfare, medicaid because the poor
should take care of themselves. The typical GOP. Hypocrites. They have No clue.
Total nonsenseDN, owned by the LDS Church, ought to have higher standards
for providing factual, reasoned information.Churches are exempt from
the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the
requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.No
individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception:
Â No Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for
contraception.Â No individual will be forced to buy or
use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.Drugs that cause abortion ARE NOT covered by this policy. (Note, Plan B
is over-the-counter and is not covered by insurance)Over half of
Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover
contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and
California have identical religious employer exemptions.Â Some
States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher
Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used
contraception.Contraception coverage reduces costs.
To "LDS Liberal 2:13 p.m. Feb." unfortunately your views of
liberalism and reality do not meet.The fact that you are
Pro-Abortion (lets be honest, Pro-Choice is just a nice way of putting it) shows
that you do not understand what agency is. Agency (free agency is a misnomer
because there is nothing free about agency) begins at the first choice a person
makes. If a woman decides to sleep with a man, she should be prepared for the
consequences. The LDS stance on abortion reflects this.Nowhere in
the LDS scriptures does it call for a redistribution of wealth. There are calls
to help the less fortunate, but this is not a redistribution of wealth. The
wealthy are still wealthy, and the poor are still poor, but none are starving
and in need of anything.You said that "Republican Mormons
remind me of Gadianton Nephites." But, when you look at the back room
deals and the power that those in the Democrat party (and those that call
themselves Progressives) seek, they are moden day Gadiantons. Take a look at
the number of people that are appointed as "special advisors" to the
President, and the people that he goes to for advice, they are exactly like
those who followed Amalikiah. See Alma 46:3-5 "3 Now the leader of those
who were wroth against their brethren was a large and a strong man; and his name
was Amalickiah.4 And Amalickiah was desirous to be a king; and those
people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they
were the greater part of them the lower judges of the land, and they were
seeking for power.5 And they had been led by the flatteries of
Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king
that he would make them rulers over the people."Look at the
hate and anger that the liberal media puts out against anybody who dares oppose
them. They sound just like those who supported the Gadiantons.
LDS Lib:First, I don't listen to AM radio. Second, free agency has
nothing to do with politics. There is always free agency regardless of what
laws may or may not be on the books. Third, I never said Democrat or
Republican. Fourth, the LDS church says that abortion MAY be justified in RARE
cases after careful counsel with leadership and God. That is not the same as
"allowing." Fifth, the LDS church does NOT "allow" civil
unions in any way. Where in the world did you get that? Have you read the
Family Proclamation? Sixth, are you kidding me with the redistribution of
wealth? I challenge you to find that phrase is any official document of the
church. I mean, are you at all familiar with the church's welfare system? It
is based on something for something, not something for nothing (like the
government system). Also, financial help from the church is defined and finite,
not collect a check every month (like the government). The church preaches
self-reliance, not some work and some don't. The idle shall not wear the
garments of the laborers--ring a bell?
Hawkdriver | 6:14 a.m. Feb. 4, 2012 New York, NY LDS Lib:
interesting logic there. What about being LDS aligns you with American Liberal
values? Just curious, since several items from the current Lib platform are
issues the church has actually taken a political stand against (same-sex
marriage, abortion, gender roles). I'm not saying there is a church party by any
stretch--I just would like to know how you define "liberal" as it
applies to LDS doctrine. ================ First of all
- stop trusting AM radio for an eduction and read a dictionary for the
definition of "Liberal".Second, Free Agency =
Freedom = ChoiceThat means I am Pro-Freedom, Pro-Choiceand if
it's the "Democratic platform" you worry about -- I'm not a Demcocrat,
I'm Libertarian.Futhermore - The LDS church allows for abortion,The LDS church allows civil unions,Mormons Scriptures and Leaders preach
constantly about needing a proper re-distribution of wealth, ect., ect.If you are Republican and Mormon -- how on Heaven and Earth can you
justify waging Wars for Oil, shunning the poor and the needy, and giving
Corporations more Control over our Government than the PEOPLE?Republican Mormons remind me of Gadianton Nephites.
@merich39 - so are you suggesting Catholic hospitals refuse to accept Medicare
or Medicaid enrollees? Can you please let us know what secular organizations are
operating schools or hospitals in inner cities ? Which ones do you donate time
or money to?
Yes, of course, the left seems to think that students who receive PELL grants
and other government funding automatically mean that the University has received
those forms of funding. Isn't that one of the ways that the government tried to
change BYU's housing policy?Students may choose to earn money before
going to college, to ask Dad for help or to ask Uncle Sam to pay their way. If
Uncle Sam decides to pay their way, it in NO WAY means that the University has
accepted funding.Churches do NOT receive tithes and offerings from
the Government. Churches DO provide help for the needy - even those
who are not members of their church. If churches are taxed for doing good, let
them directly bill the government for every act of charity. The Government
would lose BIG TIME.
What a ridiculous hit piece.
the solution to this problem seems very very simple. those Catholic hospitals
or universities that want to be exempt from this federal requirement need only
stop accepting federal funding. why should an institution that receives federal
funding be exempt from federal regulations simply because they are owned and
operated by a religious organization? these aren't houses of worship. they are
businesses that serve the general public and receive federal funding for doing
so.they should quit whining and play by the rules. the rules do not
state they have to provide medical care that violates their religious beliefs.
the rules state that if they receive federal funding, they have to follow
federal rules. there's a big difference that the choose to overlook. this is a
situation over which they have complete and total control. just stop accepting
@ pragmatist ... oh really? Why don't you go on a typical college campus and
give a pro life speech or anti gay marriage speech and see how fast you get
shouted down. Because as we know, the opposite of diversity is university.
I guess I'm just a "bitter clinger" to guns and religion but I'm not
trying to compel anyone under the force of law to provide condoms, morning after
pills or sterilization to their employees. That's Kathleen Sebelius and Barry O.
Gerson:"an edict delivered with a sneer."The whole tone of
this article, including the title, is ridiculous, more suited to the standards
of tabloid journalism. "Christian colleges and universities of
various denominations will resist providing insurance coverage for
abortifacients."Facts:Health and Human Services:"Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to
all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization
procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations DO NOT
include abortifacient drugs."In developed countries, the vast
majority of Catholics use birth control.In underdeveloped countries,
people are less likely to use birth control, including condoms. As a result,
AIDS is an epidemic, resulting in death and an increase in the number of
orphans. Hard to see how the Catholic policy is pro-life. 1.
Catholic institutions employ many people who aren't Catholic. 2. Birth
control medication is used to treat many other gynecologic conditions, not just
the prevention of pregnancy. 3. Can't Catholic institutions just stop
offering healthcare coverage, pay the "tax" and require their
employees to purchase it on their own?
So Red State do you happen to own a mirror..I thought not. Try walking past a
store window and looking in with the sun at your back. "I don't like
calling someone evil or un-American but there is something deeply disturbing
about the American secular left (and the international secular left). It's
creepy how intolerant they are of anyone who doesn't toe their ideological line.
Celebrate diversity? Oh sure, as long as we're not talking diversity of
thought."So if someone disagrees with you they are intolerant
of thought diversity? No one here said you should be put in jail, no one here
said you didn't have a right to your thoughts and expressions, they simply have
in various ways said you're wrong. I would never have any delusions
of affecting your thoughts but you don't get to call someone else intolerant
because they disagree with you, without being called on it.
I can't believe Catholics were duped so badly in the last Presidential election.
What did they expect from this man? We tried to warn them. Maybe they'll see the
light in the next election. I don't like calling someone evil or
un-American but there is something deeply disturbing about the American secular
left (and the international secular left). It's creepy how intolerant they are
of anyone who doesn't toe their ideological line. Celebrate diversity? Oh sure,
as long as we're not talking diversity of thought. Welcome to Barack
Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer's brave new world. Government is your new
religion and if you don't fall in line we'll re-educate you.
What a ridiculous hyperbolic conclusion. Because the Obama Administration has
determine catholic institutions must provide the same levels of health coverages
for their employees as do other corporate interests, he is engaged in a
"formally declared war on all religion" Give me a break! If you want a
real "war" on all religions, elect me President. I would tax them
like any other business. That is what they are!
The problem with what is happening here begins with the word
"creeping". Creeping secularism, creeping liberalism, creeping
Obamacare, creeping entanglements.A poet has written: "Vice is
a monster of such frightful mein, as to be hated needs but to be seen. Yet, seen
too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.The path of diminution begins as a broad, well paved, illuminated
freeway. It continues with an exit onto a two-laned road, then a turn onto a
dirt road. It finally leads to a rutted path with growing vines and creepers
wrapping themselves so very tenderly around you. And then, there is no turning
back because you are embraced by the jungles.There are many who
warned about this when the 2000+ page Obamacare was passed. Few, if any, really
understood the lurking hazards when the vote was cast. A bill with that many
pages will most certainly provide the exits and detours that the Piper wants you
to follow to his lair in the jungle.This decision by the Obama
administration is simply one of many that will surely follow if we continue this
course. Make no mistake .... this is not a mistakeI It is a carefully calculated
plan by people who have no interest in the America that the Founding Fathers
envisioned. The Piper's calling you to join him.
re: Wally West | 7:51 p.mArticle 1, Section 1:"All
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Yes "Congress" makes all laws. The President cannot
legislate.The Presidential oath: "I do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."He cannot preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution when he forces an establishment of Religion
to change its doctrine. The 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution. You can read. I can read. We hope that he can read.The
PEOPLE are in charge, not the President, not Congress, not the Court. The
PEOPLE have limited the duties of the President, of Congress and of the Court.
"WE THE PEOPLE" hold all rights, all power, all authority except those
rights, powers and authority that we ENUMERATED and AUTHORIZED in the
It is amazing and sad to see the blatant disregard for religion and religious
protections displayed in the postings here.
LDS Lib: interesting logic there. What about being LDS aligns you with
American Liberal values? Just curious, since several items from the current Lib
platform are issues the church has actually taken a political stand against
(same-sex marriage, abortion, gender roles). I'm not saying there is a church
party by any stretch--I just would like to know how you define
"liberal" as it applies to LDS doctrine.
If the administration has overstepped the intent of the law, I presume that
Congress, especially the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, will
hold hearings and can amend the law to redress any excesses. The federal courts
are also quite capable of correcting excesses. Finally, there is a presidential
election coming in less than a year. Our system is one of checks and balances.
I presume the current administration has overstepped the bounds of good
judgement and Constitutional authority in this area, but I trust that our normal
political system will correct these excesses.
Title:"Obama has formally declared war on all
religions"============ This one definetly belongs
in the "National Enquirer" or FoxNews.Yellow Journalism.Pathetic.newintown | 7:40 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012 WOODS
CROSS, UT Again I question your name LDS? Liberal.---- Yes -
LDS and LiberalJust as we should be.I'm Liberal because I'm
LDS, not inspite of it.
I'm so tired of all the Lies. Tax Churches NOW. The tax free status is unfairly
subsidizing religion, all religions. Your God tells you how to live your life=
religion, You and your God telling me how to live my life= politics and negates
your tax free status.
per Mark B 10:42 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012**Since there is no formal
declaration of war here, wouldn't a more accurate title include something like
"symbolically declared war"?**No would buy , read, or
comment and we all know its about the bottom line... Just ask Romney's CPA in
the Caymans, **And wouldn't a government's first obligation be to
individuals rather than institutions, such as the Catholic Church?** You would think so. But, according to Willard the insincere, ''corporations
are people too'. So, I guess using the same so called logic that churches &
corporations > individuals. To quote the musical group Megadeth,
"Tell me something, it's still 'We, the people', right?"
re: Mike Richards 7:09 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012We are talking about Obama
& what is the 1st word in your quote? Can't believe I'm the only one who
noticed the discrepancy?I agree with Ranch Hand & Esquire in the
posts prior to MR. If the SCOTUS ruled for religion in *EEOC v.
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School* then why shouldn't a
parallel be drawn with the current hype about churches & health care?I'm all for seperation between C & S; Though, its
funny/ironic/hypocritical that the right can peddle influence/shape policy
during certain administrations but when the left pushes back the
pious/zealous/repressed get all bent out of shape.
Make no mistake about it. It is war. It has been going on since before this
world, and continues to escalate. Take a side folks. The fence sitters are luke
warm. Do your own research on this one. Your sign is know, LDS? Liberal. You
Again I question your name LDS? Liberal.You and Esquire always resort to
pretending there is no problem rather than facing the increasing obviousness of
the Obama administration war against religion. deny it, decry it, point fingers
and name call. It still is an obvious elephant in the living room. Obama had a
chance to back away from a violation of the establishment clause. Two years ago
he would have, but he becomes increasingly bold, aided by your denial of the
obvious.Fearmongering? Not by a long shot. LDS? I think not.
Good, at least someone is willing to ignore all the crazy superstitious
War on all religion? There are so many things wrong with this article that I
don't have time to write them. I think even commenting beyond a blanket
statement like STUPID might give it more credibility than it deserves.I've wasted enough of my time already.
Irresponsible journalism. There is no war on religion. This is a refutation of a
war on women's rights which has been, unfortunately, successful for much of
humankind's existence. Moves such as this are another positive step toward
equality and freedom from religious intolerance.
Somebody should declare war on all religions, they're all a bunch of bs. Tax
Windmill. Tilt at it.
Perhaps the most important question in religion is whether God is in control or
whether the President of the United States is in control.Who made
Barack Obama - God? When did that happen? Why is he so certain that he can
redefine religious doctrine?God instructed us to be fruitful, to
multiply and to have joy in our children. Mr. Obama seems to be telling us that
birth is a burden, that life must be stopped before it commences, that HE will
choose for us what influence religion should have in our lives.Who
is the VOICE? Is it Barack Obama or is it God?That is the
fundamental question that we will have to answer before the November elections?
If Mr. Obama has replaced God, then we had better be willing to bow before him,
to worship him, to strike out the word "In God We Trust" and replace
it with, "In Obama We Trust".Is this extreme?Hardly.We have a Constitution that PROHIBITS the President from
doing what Mr. Obama is doing. Does law and order mean nothing? We
have an agreement with the government that government WILL NOT tell us what
religious doctrines we must follow. Mr. Obama believes differently. It's time
to retire him and his policies and his beliefs before further damage is done.
So Lost in DC contractives are abortion??
@RedShirt"Would you condone forcing a muslim to buy pork, or
force the LDS church welfare program to provide alcohol?Why is it ok
to force a religious group to pay for something that they have deemed a
sin?"With income tax, a Muslim buys pork products and support
the subsidized farming of pigs. Open a case of MREs that are given to disaster
victims and military personnel and there are pork products in many of them. Do Muslims get to to specify in their taxes that they are not to be used
to buy pork products? Can an orthodox Jew specify not to purchase food that is
not kosher with their tax dollars? And, I hate to tell you this, but your tax
dollars subsidize the farming of corn, which is turned into whiskey. Your tax
dollars subsidize the farming of hops and barley, which are used to make beer.
How about tobacco farm subsidies? I am personally opposed to smoking, yet my
income taxes pay to subsidize tobacco farmers. BTW, there is a very
simple medical way to avoid pregnancy. It is practiced every day by people who
don't have sterilization surgery or use other birth control products. It is
'Why is it ok to force a religious group to pay for something that they have
deemed a sin?' - RedShirt | 2:58 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012 Because religion
uses it's belief... to justfy action on those, who never claimed to
believe. **'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' -
By Lynn Arave - By Dsnews - 02/03/09 Muslims, do not eat pork. Isn't it about time they 'act on those belief's'.... and
LEGISLATE that particular sin...? ***'Religious lobbying is changing
political focus' - By Mercedes White, Deseret News - 11/21/11
'Number of lobbies has grown from 40 to over 200...' - article Or is
it only 'acceptable'... when you do it?
@ lost in DC: "from the article - compelled to pay for health insurance
that covers sterilization, contraceptives and Abortifacients. if it isn't a form
of abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?"It's called
hyperbole.As I stated in my previous post, there are unproven claims
that Plan B will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting - which is where the
"abortifacients" claim comes in.Since there is no support
for the claim, it is hyperbole. It's sole purpose is to get people riled up.
To lost in DC | 2:17 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012 West Jordan, UT bubble and
furryfrom the article - compelled to pay for health insurance that covers
sterilization, contraceptives and Abortifacients. if it isn't a form of
abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?----------------------------Because the church is playing word games.
It's NOT an abortifact, no matter how much they wish differently.==============================furry,I think it would be
better to allow private institutions proividing care to the elderly and poor
(medicare and medicaid), especially those supported by or affiliated with a
religion, to provide that care while maintaining their standards without having
the government dogma of abortion, abortion uber alles forced upon them. ---------------------Abortion isn't being forced on them.
This has nothing to do with abortion, regardless how much they would like to
claim to the contrary. This deals with contraception, which prevents pregnancy.
Specifically, contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies, which prevents
abortion. This is just an attempt by the Catholic Church to force their dogma
on people who believe and act differently. They should serve the people needing
medical treatment without imposing their dogma.
To "CHS 85" No JWs will be forced to have blood transfusions because
insurance covers alternatives. From the Jehova's Witness web site
"Jehovahâs Witnesses request nonblood alternatives, which are widely
used and accepted by the medical community....The medicines and surgical
techniques used in place of blood are so effective that doctors now offer them
to patients who are not Jehovahâs Witnesses."Tell us,
what medical alternative is there to birth control or sterilizations?Would you condone forcing a muslim to buy pork, or force the LDS church
welfare program to provide alcohol?Why is it ok to force a religious
group to pay for something that they have deemed a sin?
'if it isn't a form of abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?' - lost in DC |
2:17 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012 Birth control... kills? How can you 'kill' a person... who is not even concieved? Should we then, place legal protections on EVERY egg a woman
produces? Sperm? This is foolish logic.
As, you celibrate your birthday. Not your 'unfertilized
bubble and furryfrom the article - compelled to pay for health insurance
that covers sterilization, contraceptives and Abortifacients. if it isn't a
form of abortion, why call it an ABORTIFACIENT?furry,I think
it would be better to allow private institutions proividing care to the elderly
and poor (medicare and medicaid), especially those supported by or affiliated
with a religion, to provide that care while maintaining their standards without
having the government dogma of abortion, abortion uber alles forced upon them.
floridadan | 1:00 p.m. Feb. 3, 2012 Palm Bay, Fl I am not too
concerned because in November our one term president will be replaced by a real
american that I hope will fight to give america back to americans. ================ "a real american"a sure
fire Talk radio listener give away....
I am not too concerned because in November our one term president will be
replaced by a real american that I hope will fight to give america back to
To lost in DC | 10:50 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012 I would ask you what YOU
think is more important -- the medical needs of the people seeking treatment and
the ability of those people to have their medical needs satisfied, or the
ability of the institution to impose its dogma on the people seeking treatment
from it. My vote goes to the people seeking treatment.BTW -- the
issue in this matter isn't abortion. It's contraception which, together with
appropriate education, reduces the need for abortion. Your hypothetical did not
accurately represent the issue in question here.
Do we then want a Jehovah's Witnesses as President then?. Why NOTHING gets done
in Congress. The Obama administration pursuit of the billionaire industrialist
Koch brothers is akin to McCarthyism at its worst or Richard Nixon's enemies
list. And it's all because Charles and David Koch are an attractive punching
bag for the left due to their public stances promoting crooked for them only
liberty. The misuse of government power to damage or demean one's political
enemies is abhorrent and the very antithesis of a free society and a government
of laws, not men. It is time for the public to ask those engaged in these
practices. If a journalist, labor-union leader or community organizer on the
left can be targeted today, an academic or business person on the right can be
the target tomorrow. Have you no sense of decency in Utah anymore?. I really now
hope Obama will pander to the extreme left with divisive tactics, trying to get
51 percent of Americans to buy into the notion that they'll be better off if
they give him the power to make other people not worse off.Mitt
Romney2012 Catholics use contraception or breed like
Surveys show 95% of Catholics use contraception and 89% say the church has no
business getting involved in it. They really don't care about the issue.
So how many Jehovah's Witnesses will be forced to have blood transfusions? How
many Catholics will be forced at gunpoint to take birth control pills?My insurance pay for gastric bypass surgery, but I don't plan to use those
benefits for myself. My insurance also provides obstetric care, even though
most of the employees are men. Just because the coverage is there, does
that mean that it has to be used?
@ lost in DC: Plan B does not cause abortions. It prevents the fertilization
of the egg, thereby preventing a pregnancy from occurring (and incidentally
preventing the need for an abortion later).There is some unproven
speculation that Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the
uterine wall and those who wish to engage in hyperbole focus on this unproven
speculation to claim that this failure to attach is an abortion. The way to
prevent it from reaching this hypothetical scenario is to make sure Plan B is
taken as soon as possible after it's use is indicated. Once an egg is
fertilized and implanted, Plan B is no longer effective - it will not terminate
a pregnancy - in other words, it does not cause an abortion.Additionally, since Plan B is over the counter unless you are 17 or younger,
it is questionable whether insurance would cover it anyway - I know my insurance
doesn't cover my over the counter meds.
What? This is nonsense. It sounds like something Rush would write.
@ 9:58AM Romney opponents struggle for traction on ice, ahead of Nevada
caucuses. Trump is still "punch-drunk" when he hugs Newt the way he
does, over Mitt Romney. Thing's go down hill real fast when Trump has his hands
on someone. WWE owner Vince McMahon has sold WWE Raw to real estate magnate
Donald Trump has purchased WWE Raw, in what appears to be a new storyline for
the long-running wrestling program. This isn't Trump's first appearance with the
WWE, Trump took part in the Battle of the Billionaires, where Trump's fighter
Bobby Lashley took on McMahon protege Umaga. Stone Cold Austin served as the
referee. Lashley ended up winning the fight, afterward Trump and Lashley shaved
McMahon's head. Austin then performed a Stone Cold Stunner on Trump. Trump
trumped owner Vince McMahon in the "Battle of the Billionaires," now
he's going after Newt's billions he got off from bow down to K Street and Wall
Street Corporate sneakiness, outright-scams and con-games. Koch Brother's and
ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics, deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch
Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and
sugar cane), with more-corruption, and "crony-capitalism."
BO said Obamacare wouldn't cover abortions. he lied.Furry,if
you lived in an area served only by a catholic hospital, would you rather they
were forced to provide abortion coverage to their employees as long as they
serve medicare patients, or would you rather they refused medicare patients so
they can refuse being forced to provide abortion services or pay abortion
coverage to their employees? Are you so bent on forcing them to provide
abortion coverage you would deny the elderly services paid for by medicare?LDS Lib,I get it, anyone who disagrees with you is a hateful
Since there is no formal declaration of war here, wouldn't a more accurate title
include something like "symbolically declared war"? And wouldn't a
government's first obligation be to individuals rather than institutions, such
as the Catholic Church? Let's be real - almost all American Catholic women do
use contraceptives at some point in their lives. No one is COMPELLED to use them
at all. The difference in the insurance premium is probably tiny as well.
If the issue is freedom of religion, why should my employer get to force me to
follow his religious beliefs?I also like the way that an article
about birth control for women focuses on the negative effects providing it has
Oh brother --- HyperboleRhetoricThe Sky is Fallingthe End of the World as we know itNothing like the parroting of AM
Hate talk radio to get one's blood flowing in the morning!I swear,
why are so many addicted to negative extremism?!
To Steve C. Warren | 9:22 a.m. Feb. 3, 2012 WEST VALLEY CITY, UT Does anyone know whether these Catholic universities, hospitals and charities
receive any federal funding? -------------------From
what I've heard, they do.
It's too bad the author didn't bother to inform us that Catholic hospitals,
universities and charities receive government funds. In the words of Mary Floss:
"If you want to promote discrimination, do not apply for any federal or
state funding. In other words if you want to promote discrimination you will
have to do it with your own funds."The position of the Obama
administration clearly does not violate religious freedom.
Ummm, Chuck ShroederIn the last month or so, I have seen comments
posted by you where you are slashing Romney as a miserable flip flopper, then
suddenly you confess you are voting for Romney, then I see you advertising a
meetings for the Democrats, then praising Romney again and slashing Newt, and
now voting for Obama.I enjoy reading comments but usually people
stick to their man. I guess it is entertaining, I never know what to expect
when I see your name...
I see no problem with this. Obama administration announced its final decision
that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for
health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.
Oh I'm sure Ted Kennedy rolled over in his grave over this one, but who really
cares anyway. Obama2012
Does anyone know whether these Catholic universities, hospitals and charities
receive any federal funding?
Christian Democrats have been on the edge of a dilemma for some time now. Many
Democrats have been troubled by the strong association between their preferred
party and its "Pro Choice" position on abortion. Catholic Democrats
have had this concern more than others.This latest affront to the
Catholic, and all Christian, supporters of the Democrat Party certainly will, I
think, force many Christians to decide whether they can continue to support
Democrat politicians. Democrats like to play both ends: they like
to represent their doctrines are compassionate and therefore Christian. At the
same time their hostility to Christians is seen in other statements and
legislation such as that featured in this article, forcing Catholics to
contribute to abortions. This panders to the atheistic contingent of the
Democrat party. This inner contradiction cannot last.A conscientious
Christian Democrat must address this quandary. Since they cannot alter their
party they might well change their party. If they cannot support the Republican
Party they might create their own party. In Catholic nations of Europe there
has been a sharp demarcation between the "Christian Democrat" and the
"Social Democrat" parties. It is not hard to see why that is.
To "The Sensible Middle" actually Obama is denying the Catholic Church
the ability to practice its religion.Lets use you Jehova's Whitness
example. Health Insurance covers blood replacement. According to the Official
Jehova's Whitness web site "Jehovahâs Witnesses request nonblood
alternatives, which are widely used and accepted by the medical community."
So there is a medical alternative to blood transfusions.Can you
tell us what medical alternative there is to the belief that birth control is
Everybody has to make compromiss on our society. If I have to live with a huge
percentage of my tax dollars going towards a military-industrial complex that I
oppose, then what's the big deal about a tiny percentage of the insurance
premiums the Catholic Church pays going towards health insurance benefits it
I completely agree with pragmatistferlife.This headline reeks of
hyperbole, is this what can start being expected by having so many retired
spokes men for the republican party working at the DN?
Obama is not denying anyone the right to live their religion. Those people who
work for a Catholic business (such as a hospital) can still if they want to
refrain from using contraceptives.Medical insurance is forced to pay
for blood transfusions. Should this not be paid for merely because Jehova's
witness don't believe in blood transfusions?
The administrations motive is not hidden it's very obvious. Denying the women
who work in these organizations contraception as part of their health care is
pure and obvious discrimination against those women. That's the motive to
counter that discrimination. The problem is that religon enjoys both legal, and
cultural favor in this country, and therefore religious discrimination against
women enjoys that same favor. It's in no way an attempt to
secularize religon, cut religon off at the knees or any of the other hyperbolic
claims made on this thread. Personally I don't think it was a very good
political move..but it is principled. Once again the President does what he
thinks is right not what is popular. I'd also be surprised to if there isn't
some kind of retreat from this.
This unconstitutional action should surprise no one. The left wing has an open
and stated agenda of stamping out all religious influence on American life. It is apparently not enough for the left to destroy such time honored
practices as displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and team prayers
before high school football games. The left is now determined to eliminate
religious beliefs themselves.The whole purpose of the First
Amendment is to prevent government from telling religious organizations what
they can believe and what practices they can follow. Obama and the rest of the
left wing extremists are attempting to turn this sheild into a sword with which
they can cut off religion at the knees.
More "successes" that Obama can campaign on!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"The "Constitutional
scholar" has done it again; he has shown the world that he neither
understands nor does he have any intention of understanding the Constitution.
He mocks it. He mocks his oath of office. He mocks those of us who believe in
America.That problem can easily be fixed in November.
This is such nonsense. It really is.
Fear mongering at its finest.