The Little Sisters of the Poor isn't just a little group of nuns standing
up to the "big bad government." It's a fairly decent sized business
with approximately 30 homes/residences located across the United States and
outside the country. Each home/residence includes a "dedicated team of staff
members" (to quote the Little Sisters' website). That makes them a
pretty decend sized employer too.This raises an interesting question
in my mind -- why should the Little Sisters be able to deny their workers basic
preventative health care. I understand them not wanting to have to fund
something that goes against their religion, but all they have to do to keep any
of their funds from funding contraception is to do what numerous other religious
organizations do -- sign a document establishing their qualification for a
waiver. Their "stand" isn't about religious freedom.
It's about their attempt to impose their theology on all their workers,
whether or not the workers are Catholic. That is NOT right, and supporting them
is NOT supporting religious freedom. Just the opposite, in fact.
While these nuns have every right to take upon themselves the multitude of
restrictions their particular religion wishes to impose upon people, they have
no right to impose these restrictions on other people.In other
words, if birth control is going to be a something that all working American
women are going to get, these nuns don't hare a right to say to those women
who work for them ...Birth control is against MY religion, therefore
YOU can't have birth control.
Geez Ultra Bob, your response on page one is unusually cynical and
conspiratorial.The financials of the Sisters are neither your
business nor are they my business. Just like the financials of the LDS Church
are neither your business nor my business.Bottom line is, they
shouldn't have to offer insurance that conflicts with their church's
This is just one of the many things wrong with Obama care. I for one don't
need the contraception mandate, I don't need maternaty care either.
I'm middle aged and so is my wife so that type of coverage is useless to us
and we are paying for it needlessly and I don't want to pay for yours.
Boy did I get everything wrong! For all my life, I thought we had rules, but
now I can see that there are no rules. Now I can see that everyone has the
right to change the rules however and how often they want.I can
hardly wait until tomorrow when some of the boys gather around the TV to watch
the Super Bowl. I can hardly wait to see all of those referees throwing flags!
I can hardly wait to see the yelling when they disagree with each other! I can
hardly wait until the game breaks out into a free-for-all because nobody
believes in rules.You go get 'em Mr. President. You just toss
away that pesky old Constitution and make up the rules as you go along. Why
shouldn't you have the right to toss The Little Sisters of the Poor under
the bus? You have your freedom. Why should anyone care if your freedom to
dictate takes away their guaranteed freedoms? After all, this is America where
YOU get to tell us what the rules are.
Well the President was right about one thing. The right does cling to it's
religion and guns. Two sacred things not to be trifled with. Basically they believe I can do what I want, when I want, and where I want,
when it comes to religion and guns and the constitution says so. Problem is
societies can't work like that. Societies are a pooling of different
beliefs, dreams, and sharing of risks. It's the very reason the
interpretation of the constitution has broaden over time, because society has
broadened. The President went to great lengths in this case to
accommodate the beliefs of the Little Sisters. Now it's there turn as
participants in society to take that hand and drop the extreme view that any
association, how remote is sin.
The Constitution was ratified in 1788, about 225 years ago. Thirteen years
later the 1st Amendment was under attack when Jefferson served as President.
Nothing much has changed. Posters still do what Jefferson did, twist and turn
the words to put a void between government and God. They reverse the meaning of
words, if it suits their purposes. They use a modern definition of
"establishment" that was first concocted by Jefferson, and try to tell
us that "establishment" has always been defined that way. I suppose
they're busy composing a new dictionary that also contains their definition
of the word "marriage". Before long they will tell us the
"marriage" has always been accepted as same-sex coupling.Obama ignores the Constitution. Using Jefferson's rational, Obama can
twist and turn the words to suit the agenda of the day. The difference is that
Obama would force "The Little Sisters of the Poor" to participate in
preventing life from beginning. No other President in history has forced an
establishment of religion to prevent the spirit children of our Creator from
happy2: Sorry, I have no time. Like all good 'liberals', I put in a
lot of time at work. But rest assured, i lean right, and afghanistan was stupid
from before day 1. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis. Back to work;
I'll get this unit up and running tonight no matter how long it takes.
"The ruling is an obvious blow to the administration and its apparent belief
that it can push around religious organizations and believers as it tries to
force its own agenda as to what constitutes responsible health care."Your remark is a mite over the top. Contraceptives are a necessary part
of many women's health care, not always for contraceptive purposes. But
what if contraception is the intent - that is still women's health, big
time.It seems to me that if an organization, I don't care what
type, has employees it needs to provide health insurance which matches their
employees' health care needs.I believe the LDS Church which
owns this paper has not taken a position against contraceptives. Am I right?
So what's the problem?Consider another situation. Scientology
disagrees with mainstream psychiatry. If they decided that they would not allow
insurance for psychiatric care for their empoyees, would you justify them on the
basis of religious liberty? Does religious liberty trump all other liberties?
I so no. You say yes apparently. Back to feudal Europe!
Sorry, Mike "Establishment" means, and has always meant, among other
definitions "act of establishing." Therefore "an establishment"
means, and has always meant, among other definitions "an act of
establishing." Amendment 1 to the US Constitutions prohibits, among other
things, the government doing anything to establish religion. Your attempt at
playing word games doesn't work, and doesn't negate what the
Constitution REALLY says and means. I, again, invite you to really study the
Constitution with a competent instructor. You'd learn a lot.
I wish that I could take all these liberals who seem so cavalier about religion
and place them in Russia around 1917 for a few years and then ask them again how
they feel about whether the influence of religion is worth supporting. But,
alas, it is a foolish wish. Progressives are the first to tear at the
foundations of very things that allow them to speak and act in the first place.
Many in Germany in the mid thirties learned of the value of God's influence
as well, much too late! Hopefully, history won't be repeated here in
America, if enough are willing to stand up for Him
Thank You glendenbg for a very informative comment and your are correct.
The premise of this article is wrong. No one has made this order of nuns the
enemy, nor is the administration the enemy. When women have access
to reliable and affordable birth control, it improves the quality of life for
women and their children.Contraception is used by 99% of American
women - it's use cuts across economic, social, religious and racial lines.
Before the Affordable Care Act passed, 28 states mandated insurance
plans covered birth control. Many of those mandates did not include religious
exemptions and businesses and religious organizations complied with them without
any fuss.In light of the above, it's fair to ask if opposition
to contraception and the contraception mandate even makes sense.Many
the religious arguments against contraception are factually wrong. Pregnancy
doesn't occur when an egg is fertilized - pregnancy occurs when it implants
into the uterine wall. Access to contraception does not increase incident of
sexual behavior, however access to contraception decreases the rate of unplanned
pregnancies which reduces the incidents of abortion.
The "Little Sisters of the Poor" have the same attitude towards life as
does their leader, Jesus Christ. He warned us about the consequences of
offending a "little one". He told us of the sanctity of life. He
warned us of the consequences if we harmed the innocent.The
"Little Sisters of the Poor" believe in Christ's doctrine. They
serve Him. They stand with Him. They hold His words in their hearts. They
know that no government on this entire earth can stand against the Lord. The fact that so many disagree with them shows the true state of
society. Maybe 55,000,000 abortions were not nearly enough to prove that any
unborn baby can be destroyed at any time by anyone. Maybe that same attitude
extends to those who would deny life while they engage in the relations that
produce children.Our Creator gave us a body to use, not for our
purposes, but for His purposes. Stopping conception and aborting the unborn are
not part of His purposes. The "Little Sisters of the Poor" understand
that concept. It seems that some mock our Creator.
@procuradorfiscal"That's simply not true. Someone needs to do a
little studying up on the regime's proposal. "They would
find is that alternative funding to the insurance companies would be paying for
it, not the LSotP money. The issue here really is fungible assets where money is
collecting from several sources and spending to several things.Let's try different examples. Republicans want to cut off all funding to
Planned Parenthood. Democrats argue that funding for abortions is already
illegal so there is no funding to Planned Parenthood for abortion. Republicans
are arguing that the assets are fungible and that if Planned Parenthood uses
federal money for one thing, that frees up other money to use for abortions. Democrats used the same exact fungible asset argument when it came to
the Chamber of Commerce spending on elections after they took in money from
overseas (use that money for one thing to free up more domestic money for
election spending). So, similarly, this is using money from LSotP to
pay for other things to free up non-LSotP money to spend on birth control. Courts generally don't buy the fungible asset argument.
@Furry1993,If you consider "an establishment" as that phrase
was used at the time that the Constitution was written, you would realize that
the founders understood English, just as your 7th grade English teacher
understands English. It did not mean "the establishment". It meant
"an establishment". Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was
written. He wrote his "separation" letter 13 years after the
Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land. Finding a dictionary that agrees
with your interpretation is just like shopping for a judge.---On to more serious matters: We all understand the meaning of the word,
"no". We know that a sign that says, "no trespassing", means
that we cannot enter that property. We know that a "stop sign" means
that we cannot proceed until we have fully stopped. We know that if a man or
woman says "no" when sexual advances occur, that the offending person
will spend a long time in jail for disregarding the word, "no".Obama does not understand the meaning of the word, "no". He thinks
that it applies only to others.The Constitution disagrees with him.
"The only thing distinguishing this reckless, feckless, liberal vote-buying
scheme from soviet-style re-education gulags is the barbed wire."This kind of overstatement weakens your arguments and makes it hard to take
seriously. It's more than a little offensive to suggest that someone who
had to live through the gulags only suffered a little bit more than someone who
is forced to ALLOW the insurance coverage they already provide to cover
contraception. The Obama Administration didn't make these nuns
public enemies. They are being propped up by the opponents of the health care
bill because they are sympathetic. I'm simply not buying that having
contraception coverage on an insurance plan is a violation of religious
conviction. If the argument is that by making it available, they are spreading
its evil, aren't they doing the same thing by paying their employees?
After all, they are facilitating the use of contraceptives in that way. If Hobby Lobby and the Sisters win, it sets a dangerous legal precedent
of employers being able to impose religion on their followers. Using a similar
rhetorical flourish as yours, this makes use mere baby steps from Sharia Law.
VanceoneIMOPeople who refuse to abide by American civil
law, regardless of the reason, are enemies of the American society and usually
referred to as criminals. Traditionally we allow people as
individuals to wear clothing and jewelry in the public square. Signs and other
broadcasting of private business is generally prohibited in the public square.
People may wear clothing and jewelry advertising of their private business and
religion through out the public square. Most Christian building will have a
cross on top. LDS uses a spire. You are wrong:The
accepted notion of why people wanted to come to America was to escape from the
religious oppression of a singular religious government. Actually I
said business operations should not have religious freedom. I am a supporter of
religious freedom for individuals but not for organizations. In that I know I
am in conflict with the First Amendment. All of the rights and
freedoms exist only because we have a government strong enough to enforce those
rights and freedoms. Everything you experience as an American is regulated,
controlled and provided by the social contract of the United States of America
I'm so grateful for those of you who are sticking up for the "Little
Sisters". Maybe some of the others should read a little more and understand
what the paper they are trying to be forced to sign really does. BTW, at
the dem conference many, many were booing and did not want the name of deity in
their by laws. Some others were boing as was said, but I took from it that the
big majority did not want it in. That & abortion & birth control. Wow!
The Lord must be so pleased. Bambi
Wow. So UltraBob is openly calling for the removal of the freedom of religion
from the US. You are openly stating that people do NOT have the right to
worship in this country. What a leftist view! What's the punishment for
worshipping God, UltraBob? What should it be? Fine? Jail? Execution?All of those are previous leftist punishments. Which do you prefer?
Filling out a form to claim an exemption is something we all do on our taxes all
the time. It is not an issue of morality or conscience in any universe I know
about. What's the big whoop that the Order can't do the same thing?
Re: "Contraception coverage would not come from the funding paid for by the
nuns."That's simply not true. Someone needs to do a little
studying up on the regime's proposal. Yeah, it's hard for all of us to
believe that liberals would overreach this far, but it's nonetheless
true.The regime's "compromise" merely places a
middleman between the nuns and the contraceptive delivery man. Nothing more.Bottom line -- the regime's plan is that nuns will be made public
enemies, and brutishly forced to violate their religious beliefs by nameless,
faceless, motherless government bureaucrats.The regime intends to
force them to become financiers of contraception.The only thing
distinguishing this reckless, feckless, liberal vote-buying scheme from
soviet-style re-education gulags is the barbed wire.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "If the interpretation of
this part of the First Amendment is ambiguous in its meaning, it should be
struck down and removed from our Constitution. It is unlikely that the founding
fathers intended it to have more than one meaning. My problem with
the First Amendment is that nowhere does it specifically extend freedom of
religion to individuals. Whether you take "an establishment of
religion" to be brick and mortar or a government action, the part
prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not refer to people. The word
"thereof" in my language is used to refer back to the first part of the
Why are the "Little Sisters of the Poor" ENEMIES of health care, and the
@Vanceone"Remember, the Democratic convention, 2012. They booed the
mere mention of God; booed lustily."They were booing Democratic
leadership for not allowing a vote to be counted when it was definitely unclear
what the result of the voice vote was. "I find it more offensive
and "war on women" to believe as the liberals do: that women are
incapable of finding birth control themselves and their employer must be forced
to provide it, because their female employees are incapable of doing otherwise.
"You could say the same about literally every other thing
Really, UltraBob? The Little Sisters of the Poor, a bunch of nuns, are now an
enemy of the American People? We "allow" them to choose what
clothes they wear? We "allow" them to build buildings? We allow them
to --gasp!-- maybe be charitable, since that is what they do?How....
generous of you. Allowing someone to actually be different. And you are
wrong--your post is exactly what people fled to America to get away from. An
overbearing government that thinks it is being generous in allowing you to
worship God. I especially like how you just casually say people
shouldn't have religious freedom in economic activity. And we all know how
the government shoving their tentacles into all activity, since all activity has
an economic impact. Democrats claimed that not buying insurance was economic
activity, so basically you are saying that there should be no religious freedom.
If not, please explain what freedoms our government should be so generous and
permit us to have. Because we all know that Government is the source of all
Perhaps if we were given a bit more information about the financials of the
Little Sisters of the Poor, we could understand why they have become an enemy of
the American people. Charity in America has devolved into a business operation.
And business operations should not have religious freedom in their service to
the public.The business operations of the largest financial
organization in the world, as with other religious organizations, should not be
allowed to use economic force to impose their beliefs on others. Traditionally America has regarded business as being a public service to all
Americans. And over time we have use the power of our government to enforce
that policy. We have given religious organizations great leeway in the
advertising of their beliefs. The clothes they wear, the external nature of
their buildings, and in some cases even allowing religious practices done in the
public square. If religious forces are able to gain control over
our government, America will devolve into that same world that the first
Americans were fleeing. Giving religion the ability to flout American civil
law is a giant step in that direction.
"Requiring religious people to associate themselves, even from a distance,
with something that violates their conscience inhibits their right to freely
exercise religion."Is this really an argument Mormons want to
follow to it's logical conclusion?
"Can a Christian Scientist declare they won't pay for any medical
expenses, since they don't believe in medicine?" The answer is simple:
Yes.Since when do we force employers to provide health care on
penalty of governmental punishment? Plenty of jobs I've had don't
offer any health care at all. And Obamacare is going to vastly increase those
numbers. Why should Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to subsidize someone
else's health care? Why can't those poor, poor women buy their own
contraceptives? Is there some rule saying that your employer buys your condoms
or you don't get any? The "Pill" is only available to people with
a health care plan? I find it more offensive and "war on women"
to believe as the liberals do: that women are incapable of finding birth control
themselves and their employer must be forced to provide it, because their female
employees are incapable of doing otherwise. Why should anyone be forced
to pay for someone else's birth control?
@procuradorfiscal"The "exemption" requires the nuns, under
penalty of prosecution, to fork over association funds to an insurance company,
so it will provide contraception benefits"Contraception coverage
would not come from the funding paid for by the nuns."only a
tiny baby step away from Marxist-Leninist re-education camps."Someone woke up on the overdramtic side of the bed this morning...
How one could construe prayer as an act to establish a religion is not only
ridiculous, but shows how far some are willing to go to remove God from any
forum except in a cloistered outhouse atop mount olympus. If this isn't a
Karl Marx dream argument, I don't know what is! How any American could
diverge so far from Constitutional understanding while spitting in God's
face at the same time is beyond me.
It's just part and parcel of the left and their full scale assault on
Christianity. Muslims don't have to comply with Obamacare, but Obama is
forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to. That's just one front.
Another is gay rights, where the doctrine being pushed is that if you are
Christian, you have to leave your religion inside the church and cannot use it
in business. The same concept--Christianity is being relegated to the old status
of pornography--you can only do it in the privacy of your own home or in that
seedy place down the road, but it can't be brought out otherwise. Remember, the Democratic convention, 2012. They booed the mere mention
of God; booed lustily. Leftists, judging by their supporters and actions, have
fully bought into Joseph Stalin's views on Christianity. No,
they say, you can practice your religion. Just as long as its hidden and of no
consequence, and you do what we tell you when we tell you, we don't care
what you believe--for the moment.
First of all, contraception is used for a bevy of reasons beyond merely
preventing pregnancy. Secondly, no one in the government is making any Catholic
person take contraception, thereby violating their fundamental religious rights.
The Government is not intervening in their actual practice. Also, there is no
protection that the government will not intervene in religious practice if it
goes against other laws. That is why you can't merely become a Rastafarian
and legally smoke pot. Another overlooked aspect is that many of
the employees of these "poor old ladies" are not Catholic. They are
portrayed as a humble little group, but in fact, they run nursing homes with
many female employees whose doctors may prescribe birth control for ovarian
cysts or other health issues. What they are doing is not only trying to not
provide the contraception, but by challenging the exemption created for them,
they are actively trying to obstruct their employees from accessing medical care
and force their own religion on them. If Hobby Lobby wins, the implications are
huge. Can a Christian Scientist declare they won't pay for any medical
expenses, since they don't believe in medicine?
Re: "The Sisters are already exempt from the contraceptive mandate. All they
have to do is fill out a form to claim the exemption."Disingenuous liberal sophistry.The "exemption" requires
the nuns, under penalty of prosecution, to fork over association funds to an
insurance company, so it will provide contraception benefits. As if that somehow
means the nuns are not being forced, by the heavy boot of government on their
necks, to violate their conscience.The regime offers this up as its
disingenuous fig leaf, suggesting it can somehow justify its illegal and immoral
shredding of the Constitution. It's telling that liberal regime supporters
won't admit this autocratic decree is only a tiny baby step away from
Marxist-Leninist re-education camps.And, it's clear the regime
has come to expect dissenting Americans, not only to abandon and violate their
religious beliefs, but to embrace the transparent dishonesty that characterizes
liberals, in general, and this regime, in particular, as well.
According to the dictionarty, "an establishment" does not only mean an
edifice or an organizaiton. It also means "an act of establishing."
Therefore, when the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." its meaning
includes "Congress shall make no law respecting an act establishing a
religion." This restriction was extended to actions by state and local
governments by the 14th Amendment. Prayer in school, etc., are acts by
government respecting an act establishing one religion as being the
"official" religion of the government and are, therefore,
unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. yes words are important --
that's why it is important not to try to construe them to only support one
position/action when the words actually mean more.
Liberals have no problem with the free exercise of religion as long as it is
confined to Sunday and is within the four walls of a church. Other than that,
they think thy have a right to dictate what the free exercise of religion will
be. These sweet women are NOT going to sign a form that consents to something
they find abhorrent and against their conscience. I hope this
attempt by the Obama Administration to oppress people of conscience is stopped
cold by the Supremes and that it is the final straw that breaks the back of this
total disaster known as Obamacare.You never know. We may be able to
save our country yet.
HutteriteI curious about something you said. You said you did not
want to pay for a war in Afghanistan. Was that always the case? Or just now
after 10 years? Few people in the world, much less here in the U.S. did not
want the United States to mount some kind of attack against the perpetrators of
911. Are you one of them? I only ask because I frequently read your posts, and
do wonder how far to the political left you lean.
@Mike RichardsChurches have to sign forms to get tax exempt status.
It's not a new concept.
Hutterite: The reason there should be no single payer system is simple. The
Constitution doesn't allow it. It is a simple document for those who
believe in simplicity. Judges, however, that want to be rulers instead of
servants, and worse yet, citizens who want to be ruled, rather than to rule, are
an existential threat to its simplicity and the liberty of those of us who
believe in liberty. The United States can reclaim its position as the leader of
the free world in how wealth is created, as well as how rights are protected,
including the rights of the sisters of the poor, or it will find itself just
another third world country! I doubt very much whether our president even
considers America as such and his polices have done nothing but destroy
capitalism, divide our nation, and pit the unalienable rights of man as given by
God against the corrupt power brokers in Washington! In either case, it
isn't going to end well for one or the other. I doubt it will be the
Sorry, Roland, but you and I disagree on this point."All they
have to do is fill out a form to claim the exemption." Why? The Government
has no authority to change the doctrine of an establishment of religion. It has
no right to require an establishment of religion to "sign a form" to opt
out of an illegal mandate.That is the point that I was trying to
make earlier today. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," How can anyone,
including the President, require an establishment of religion of sign a form to
exempt itself from a law made by Congress that infringes the rights of a
Church?When we, the citizens, sit back and allow any President to
tell us what the Constitution says, as he tries to enforce a law that violates
the Constitution, then shame on us for not protecting OUR RIGHTS. Government
does not give us rights. We were endowed by our Creator with inalienable
rights, including freedom from government interference in matters of religion.
We need to support the Little Sisters.
When you live in a society you get the whole enchilada. And that enchilada
includes some sides not everyone likes. I didn't want to pay for a war in
afghanistan, or Iraq. I think churches getting tax breaks is a scam. It goes
against my conscience. But, I like a lot of things I get from government, too,
and some compromise is always necessary to get by in this world. So, rather than
paint these outfits as victims, maybe back the idea of single payer health care,
so employers and nuns aren't even part of the health care delivery process,
and health care choices are made by people and physicians.
This editorial is highly misleading, either you don't know what the case is
about, or you are simply obfuscating. The Sisters are already exempt from the
contraceptive mandate. All they have to do is fill out a form to claim the
exemption. Their suit claims that making them fill out a form violates their
religious freedom. The Supreme Court ruled that while the case was pending, they
did not have to fill out the form, but they still had to convey all the
information to the government that the form asked for.In other
words, the Supreme Court punted until the district court issues a decision.
@ Mike Richards and procuradorfiscal:Well said, both of you. Thanks
for taking a stand for common sense and for exposing some of the techniques
deployed by the liberal extremists.
Why should the government bully these Sisters? Because it can!
Re: "Why would government make Little Sisters of the Poor an enemy?"Why? Because they're in the way of Obama's attempts to
"fundamentally transform" America into his brave-new-world vision of a
radical, autocratic, secularist, socialist, nanny state.There's
no personal animus. They just got in the way. So, now they're enemies of
the state.It'll be interesting to see what liberal character
assassination technique is applied to them as the statist propaganda juggernaut
rolls on. That's the standard liberal technique.
The editorial said: "The First Amendment grants clear protections for the
free exercise of religion, as well as against government attempts to establish a
religion."The 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,"There is no "to establish a religion" in the
1st Amendment. Why does that make a difference? It makes a difference because
the Catholic Church is "an establishment of religion". It already
exists. It is fully protected from government meddling with its doctrine by the
fact that it is an established religion. Contraception is part of the Catholic
Church's doctrine. If contraception is part of the Catholic Church's
doctrine, Congress can make no law respecting contraception vis-a-vis the
Catholic Church.Some would call that nit-picking, but words matter.
People get riled when they think that the Constitution says something that it
clearly does not say. Too many people think that we can't have prayer in
schools because there is a separation of Church and State. Those words are not
in the Constitution. Prayer is allowed. Prayer is free speech.