« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Stakes in the Catholic Church-Abortion Debate Are Higher Than You May Think

By: Francis Cianfrocca (Diary)  |  February 10th, 2012 at 12:02 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The case of the Obama Administration vs. the Catholic Church goes far beyond the fraught question of women’s reproductive rights. It’s also the clearest defining moment that I can think of in our lifetimes, on the question of the proper role of government.

It’s glaringly obvious to many people that abortion, sterilization, and similar procedures are a strictly-required component of women’s health. These people often see the opposition of the Catholic Church to these procedures not as a core belief, but rather as a retrograde, pernicious, and even cynical attack on women.

It’s just as glaringly obvious to many other people that religious freedom in America is sacrosanct. Of all the guarantees given in the Bill of Rights, religious freedom is indeed the very first one!

In this case, the Obama Administration has ruled unilaterally that health insurance programs provided by the Catholic Church must pay for abortions. Forget about the welter of discussion about whether the Federal mandate extends beyond those of many states. That’s not the core issue here.

For the government to say, as it has, that its goals are prior to the Catholic Church’s core beliefs, is precisely to say that government power is unambiguously senior to all other claims.

This is radically counter to the doctrines of the American founding. It’s more radical than anything that even FDR said during the New Deal. It quite simply elevates government to the level of a religion.

Personally, it’s clear to me that people on the pro-abortion side of this debate simply don’t understand the stakes. (Notably, that includes Sen. Chuck Schumer, who ought to know better.) If they accept that government is prior to all other claims, they’re opening themselves to the potential for some future government to take away the things that THEY hold as non-negotiable core beliefs.

To put it another way, we’ll have become a society that forthrightly elevates the collective over the individual. Again, radically counter to the doctrines of the founding.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    No one but us understands that this is only the beginning.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    and will force insurers to carry birth control at no cost as opposed to the organization buying the insurance. Semantics change, but the effect remains the same.

    • edintexas

      Those Catholic, and other religious, institutions which are opposed to contraceptives and abortifacients (the “Morning After Pill”) don’t have to provide free contraceptives and abortifacients. But if they can’t provide their own paid for coverage, then they must buy insurance. But the Administration has decided the government can determine what the insurance companies can cover and what the insurance companies can charge for the services the Administration requires them to cover. So the Catholic Church, and its institutions, must provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage if the insurance comes from a commercial company.

      Wow – that is some ‘walk back”. NOT.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      This reminds of an old Washington Post classic. Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder of Colorado was holding hammers, screws and toilet seats and berating the DoD for buying $30 screws, $500 toilet seats and I forget the rediculous price on the hammer.

      It turns out the Prime Contractor on the deal was loading material costs to bury the accurate break-out of consulting and engineering hours to produce the plane. (At least if Congresswoman Schroeder was close to accurate in her accusations).

      I remember my boy getting sick one night and having a $500 ambulance ride to a hospital w/in 25 miles of our home. I wondered at the time how much that cost had been burdened. Now, if he needs that ride again, I can wonder how many abortificant perscriptions that ambulance ride helps to fund.

    • http://alt2p.org Brookhaven

      Obama hasn’t changed his position at all. It’s little more than an old magician’s trick. “Look, nothing is in my left hand.” Meanwhile, his right hand is performing the trick while you are distracted looking at his left hand.

    • ngpsaki

      On what basis can the US government force the insurance companies to bear the cost? It certainly doesn’t fall under the taxing power. It is nothing less than an unlawful taking of property, to wit, the insurance company’s money.

  • jaykali

    You can’t be a christian in a communist govt bc the ‘state’ is above all else. Statism is alive and well and liberals like Obama are definitely statists. Maybe we should drop the socialist label bc even tho its technically true in the Euro-socialist sense, ppl here dismiss it bc socialist is kind of lumped in with communist/dictatorship regimes and this isn’t quite that.

  • avgjo

    Sorry, I disagree.

    these people are statists, more like beasts of the field than thinking, feeling human beings, living by instincts of lust, power and greed rather than moral or philosophical precepts. They are, in their minds, cementing power. They take for granted that they will hold all the power at some point in the near future. They know that the GOP, which we all so compliantly support and line up to vote for no matter what, will never give real opposition. They have nothing to fear, at least in their own minds, and possibly in real life.

    Mistake #1 on our side is ever giving these persons the benefit of the doubt.

    • edintexas

      There are people who are not opposed to abortion (as opposed to those who actively promote abortion). These people are usually considered to be “pro choice”, and they may well have been on the wrong side of this issue. I could be mistaken, but I think those are the people about whom Francis was speaking, not the clearly pro-abortion people.

      • avgjo

        THAT’S at whom my comments were directed.

        And sorry, IMHO either you’re against abortion or not.

        Imagine this:

        ‘Well, I’m personally against Hitler gassing Jewish people and gypsies, but I can’t tell the SS and Hitler’s supporters how to think or live their lives.’

        – hypothetical early 40s German.

        clarifies the issue for me.

        • fightnright

          by which they would invalidate the Hitler analogy depends on how a “human life” is defined, and how leftists are striving to define it.

          It is a *scientific* fact that a human life begins at its conception (and one with which, as a right to life advocate, I concur), which would make the taking of a life in the womb a murder.

          However, the left is trying *on all fronts* (see Pete Singer’s philosophy on the interpretation of ‘life’ in the aged, the ill, and the mentally and physically challenged, cases of the murder of a pregnant mother which also take the life of the infant in her womb, and Obama’s belief that infants surviving abortion be denied medical care and comfort) to legally define human life not scientifically, but by philosophy .

          Such a legal definition would necessarily be completely arbitrary and if rooted in (a scientifically defined) human being’s viability, autonomy, and/or conscious experience, would be designed to be stretched to exclude not only the pre-born, but also any person’s right to survive after birth at any time, even if the person has not been determined to have a terminal illness.

          The inculcation of an arbitrary legal definition of life, rather than the scientific one, is a great goal of the left in the institution of the culture of death in this nation.

          • avgjo

            Remember, they justified their treatment of various groups of people with twisted definitions of what constitutes human life. ‘Untermensch’ and so on.

            The problem is not a linguistic or logical one, but a rhetorical one. If, from day one, we had compared the leftist pro-infanticide forces to the Nazis and Communists, if we had equated their logically and semantically pathetic attempts to play with the definition of life to the clownish but deadly attempts by the Nazis to do so, if we had equated their scientific/clinical treatment of the slaughter of babies with that of Mengele, we’d be in a different place now, I’d wager.

            Problem is now, all of our so-called leadership is too craven to call a spade a sappde.

      • Francis Cianfrocca

        …believe that the government’s goal of universally-available abortion is so important that it supersedes the right of the Catholic Church to live in accordance with its own deepest principles.

        These are the people who are going to be very surprised someday when the government comes back to them saying that their own deeply-held moral beliefs (whatever those happen to be) are not as important as the government’s goals.

        To be brutally candid, I mentioned Sen. Schumer because the religious prerogatives of the Jewish community are critically important to him. If the US govt can tell Catholics that their beliefs are subordinate to some other purpose, exactly the same can (and WILL) happen to Jews someday.

        Freedom of religion, just like all the other guarantees that fundamentally DEFINE the American polity, is absolute, and it must be defended as such.

        Whatever is motivating Obama in this issue, whether it’s malice or ignorance (and I take no position on which it is), he must be resisted at all costs.

        • avgjo

          And I definitely and whole-heartedly agree with your last point.

    • ragstoriches

      “Mistake #1 on our side is ever giving these persons the benefit of the doubt.”

      I used to tell myself that we all want the same thing,they just see the road to get there differently

      Boy, was I naive back then.

      But as ignorance is bliss, I was also far happier with respect to politics then, too. Now? Now I’m just mad as heck.

  • renny

    Martin Luther King, Jr., based his civil disobedience on, as did Mahatma Gandhi in India, and so Thoreau in his “On Civil Disobedience.”

    If it is given up, so is the Quaker objection to serving as a fighting soldier in an army, and “Antigone” that the left has filled textbooks with in order to promote pro-liberal protest also becomes worthless and the Bill of Right’s First Amendment abandoned.

  • robertd

    Obviously the Constitutional issue is paramount, but from a purely political standpoint, I can understand Obama’s calculation. The Republican party has completely capitulated on social issues, particularly homosexual “rights”. Indepedents of a conservative slant are so afraid of being called “intolerant” or “right wing” that they have run from defending their positions on social issues and “prioritize” national security and economic issues.
    I am sure the Obama administration figured Republicans would run and hide out of fear of being called mean names on this abortion issue, the same as they have on the homosexual “rights” issue.

  • scesnar

    Even putting the subject matter of today’s issue aside…..

    The fact that the President of the United States, as a result of the powers given in this law can at any time stand at a podium and DECLARE what shall and shall not be covered and paid for…..and by whom…..at any time should give any American pause.

    • larueladue

      I don’t think that many people understand this at all. And that, right there, is the crux of the problem.

    • carolynr

      Anyone…and I mean anyone that agrees with this has signed the death warrant to the United States of America. We no longer have three branches of government…we have a GD Dictator and a bunch of policy wonks who are not even elected that declare their objectives as law, bypassing the Congress.

      XL Pipeline…he will veto it. Democrats in Congress (Senate) will not ALLOW it for a vote.

      So…streif…what happened to “We The People”?? Now it’s Become “Obama, the Dictator”.

      You know…we all went to the polls and tried to get this into the hands of what we thought would change things, i.e., Republicans. We have been thwarted because Boehner blinks too often, Harry Reid will not bring it up for votes, and members of Congress have put their personal comfort ahead of what needs to be done for America…the people they supposedly serve.

      We were supposed to stop the out of control spending. Did anyone read Drudge today…Obama’s budget is 1 TRILLION OVER!!! But…what’s a trillion here or there…in that trillion he is COMMANDING us to pay for FREE birth control on the backs of taxpayers, the elderly and at the same time DEMANDING that religion follow along with his DEMANDS against their beliefs. I am not talking about personal beliefs…I am talking about the Catholic position…if you don’t like it…go to another church.

      Oh…but don’t let me bring up impeachment…forbid…I don’t belong on this board. Why…was it a little too blunt for you streif? Didn’t like it…too bad. The guy needs to be gone and gone or replaced with someone that will get rid of this God awful bill that is FILLED with other dictates that we are going to experience in the near future…starting with 3.8% tax on home sales. Oh…how to stimulate the housing market and put money in the hands of the people. When are we going to wake up to the fact that this man is destroying our country? When

  • rogershru2

    How is this at all any different???

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      As was astutely pointed out up thread, Obama has simply made the cost of abortificants, contraceptives and anything else he wants to hand out as sugar under ObamaCare a cost burden on other rates. This means that rather than specifically billing Sister of Mercy Boarding School for a truckload of IUDs, he just adds some Baby Punishment Alleviation Fee to the price of aspirin or surgery.

      • bobmark

        is something you just haven’t been billed for yet.
        Got this in a fortune cookie yesterday, smart guy, that Confucius!

    • Ausonius

      You are quite right: there is no difference, and the Jake Tapper article from the ABC News website has the Administration saying it will not really be any different. So why are they talking “compromise” when there really is none?

      Purest propaganda!

      Let us repeat the mantra: “Dems do NOT compromise, even when they say they do!”

  • mbrat42

    when our President, other government officials, and those in the media either don’t care to bring in facts or don’t know the facts. The President and liberal women’s group keep framing this argument as a women’s health issue. They do the same when it comes to Planned Parenthood funding.

    I finally heard Tom Coburn say what I have been screaming at the TV for the past year or more. Women HAVE access to FREE gynecological exams, breast exams, AND birth control pills and devices through their local health department. This service is funded by the government and has been available for 25 years or more. Access has NOTHING to do with this.

  • http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/960306/gregory_schmidt.html theillinoisguy

    Isn’t that what statists believe? That the governement is the end all, be all. No room for any other God in that equation.

  • mkozikowski

    “Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    This has been done once before, and well written about by MARTIN NIEM?LLER.

    http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

  • burke

    Why is the headline phrased in terms of abortion? Is this fear of a slippery slope? Maybe you can correct me and show how the controversy is about abortion, but I think it’s about birth control. Otherwise I think your post title is misleading.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      you have a debate about abortion as well.

    • streiff

      things would work out a lot better for you because thinking just isn’t your cup of tea.

      Abortifacients are covered. A-b-o-r-t-i-f-a-c-i-e-n-t. There I’ve improved your knowledge and vocabulary. No need to thank me. My work here is done.

    • veritaseequitas

      or abortion. Boiled down to its essence it is about the government infringing upon religious rights and religious conscience.
      The Left is always swooning and getting their knickers in a twist whenever they perceive a conflict between church and state. And it is almost always about something inconsequential. This time it is a SERIOUS infringement upon the rights of American citizens by their government. Barack Obama is way out of control and needs to be brought to heel. He is a dog.

      • burke

        I agree that telling the Church it has to cover birth control is the same type of action as telling the Church it has to cover abortions. It’s a bad type of action.

        I also want to make a technical point here, to strieff and Repair_Man above. I don’t buy that birth control is the same thing as abortion. Even morning after pills don’t actually induce abortions. Look it up. Once the sperm and egg have come together, even if you take the morning after pill, you’ll still be pregnant. That is why it is called the morning after pill — if you wait much longer, it will be too late.

        You can be opposed to both birth control and abortion, as the Church is (and should certainly be able to reflect its beliefs in its health plans), but it’s misleading to say that birth control is the same thing as abortion. It does the issue of abortion a disservice to imply they’re the same. No person gets killed if a person takes birth control. The potential to create life is diminished by birth control. But it’s not the same thing.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          >>>The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions

          http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-revises-mandate-free-abortion-causing-drugs-for-women/

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          While there seems to be some question over whether the “morning after” pill is effective following fertilization, RU-486 clearly acts to prevent implantation of embryos, and that makes it an abortifacient. Thus the rule does cross beyond birth control into abortion.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            nt.

        • greyeagle

          It is also to cover the pill called RU259 I think it is called. It does cause an abortion. Religious hospitals are also being told that they have to provide abortions. So this is much larger than birth control pills. They are also ignoring the first amendment of freedom of religion. Obama is telling religious organizations, churches, and hospitals what they must do even if it is against their faith. The Baptists and Evangelicals are joining the Catholics in this matter. I am surprised the Muslims are not protesting this mandate, or maybe I am not.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      .
      .

  • iunderstand

    “In this case, the Obama Administration has ruled unilaterally that health insurance programs provided by the Catholic Church must pay for abortions.”

    Unlike many State laws, the Catholic Church was exempted from the rule (even before today’s “accommodation”).

    What was not exempted is secular organizations owned by the Church. Organizations that can and do accept public funding on the basis that they are expressly secular organizations.

    Finally, this “rule” has been the law since an EEOC ruling over a decade ago, so it’s not even an Obama Administration decision (the Obama Administration did unilaterally add the Church exemption though).

    • streiff

      Abortifacients are included.

      • Uma Richie

        For example, the Catholic television station EWTN is not exempt. Are you saying that because they use FCC regulated airwaves, they give up their religious freedom?

        • Uma Richie

          nt

        • iunderstand

          In an 1899 test of the establishment clause it was ruled that since Catholic schools were considered secular organizations they could receive funding from the Federal Government. This was recently upheld when testing the constitutionality of Government school voucher programs.

          To now, 100 years later, take the opposite position and claim they are religious organizations doesn’t seem correct.

          • streiff

            in fact, I know it isn’t. The case you’re referring to is Bradfield v. Roberts

          • Joshua Persons

            I’m trying to get what you’re saying, streiff. iunderstand is wrong in that the 1899 decision was a hospital rather than a school. Right?

            I think what really bugs me here regarding iunderstand’s argument is the assumption that if an organization is secular, then it must not have any values worth defending against the government. Let’s take for example Susan B. Anthony List — a group whose sole purpose is to eliminate abortion in the United States. Are they being forced to cover abortifacients? Isn’t this an outrage as well?

          • iunderstand

            And I have seen nothing to indicate abortfacients are covered under this rule or would be legal to cover in any case. Their are specific laws that prohibit such a requirement for any insurance policy let alone in the case we’re discussing. Specifically the “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”.

          • Joshua Persons

            Sebelius’s announcement:

            http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

            “Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine?s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.”

            FDA’s list of approved forms of contraception:

            http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/ucm118465.htm#emerg

            (Plan B, Plan B One-Step, Next Choice, Ella)
            ?The Morning After Pill?
            May be used if you do not use birth control or if your regular birth control fails
            It should not be used as a regular form of birth control

            Wikipedia’s article on RU-486:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU-486

            Mifepristone is a synthetic steroid compound used as a pharmaceutical. It is a progesterone receptor antagonist used as an abortifacient in the first months of pregnancy, and in smaller doses as an emergency contraceptive.

          • iunderstand

            Their is debate on how to classify “the morning after” pill, just as their is debate on how to classify “the pill”. That classification is not informed or decided by this rule and the classification applies to all laws and rules, not just this one.

            I think it’s fine to fight the fight over how to classify “the morning after” pill, but that debate has nothing to do with this rule as it did not add that pill to the list.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            The rule mandate coverage of RU-486

            Therefore the rule mandates covering agents that cause abortions.

            No wriggle room here.

          • iunderstand

            It seems to be exceedingly hard to get the actual text of the rule though so if you have a source I’d love to read it.

          • Joshua Persons

            http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html

            The full text may or may not be public, but Sebelius’s press release clearly states that the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives are part of the mandate.

          • streiff

            you’ve trolled us long enough. Have fun some other place.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            as that is what the rule covers.

            Here’s the HHS statement

            Bottom line sentence:

            Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine?s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.

            FDA-approved emergency contraception includes the following:

            Plan B, Plan B One-Step, Next Choice, Ella

            I was mistaken about RU-486 – reading more closely, this is not included in the list covered by the rule.

            However, ella is described as very closely related to RU-486 with strong evidence apparently that it can prevent implantation.

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-mandates-coverage-abortion-drug_581969.html?nopager=1

          • streiff

            this guy was just trolling us and now he’s gone.

          • iunderstand

            http://www.dioslc.org/ministries/governmentliaison/usccb-response-to-white-house-blog-on-contraceptive-mandate

            But their is fear that it might be covered at some point.

          • Joshua Persons

            I’ve already posted all this directly to you.

            http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/ucm118465.htm#emerg

            RU-486 is ALREADY an FDA approved emergency contraceptive.

          • iunderstand

            I couldn’t find RU-486 on that page, can you quote what you see there so I can understand?

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            I just commented on this above.

            It probably is a distinction without significance in the end, as ella appears to be an abortifacient, but I didn’t find RU-486 on the list.

          • streiff

            the “morning after” pill is contraceptive and is covered under the HHS regulation.

          • Joshua Persons

            You’re now avoiding using subjects in your sentences, moving to the passive voice as well as non-specifics such as “their is” [sic]. Is this a conscious of subconscious effort to confuse the issue?

            Are you trying to say that the HHS is debating whether or not to use the FDA’s list of approved contraceptives? I highly doubt that.

            Are you trying to say that the FDA is considering removing RU-486 from its list of approved contraceptives? If so, that would be amazing and a game changer. Can you provide any proof?

            Are you trying to suggest RU-486 is not an abortifacient? Unfortunately, the science is all against you on that one.

            The contraceptive mandate clearly forces anti-abortion groups, secular or “secular”, to provide coverage for an abortifacient. As civil truth said, “No wriggle room here.”

          • iunderstand

            http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/ucm118465.htm

          • streiff

            isn’t a religious organization. Proabably tough crap for them.

          • Kyle-MI

            The Hosanna-Tabor ruling was just made this January. It gave a Lutheran school a religious exception from employment discrimination laws. In essence the ruling was that parochial schools were religious institutions, not secular ones.

            http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hosanna-tabor-evangelical-lutheran-church-and-school-v-eeoc/

          • streiff

            you are correct.

          • iunderstand

            Because the person involved was not just a teacher, but a minister the Church does have a 1st amendment right to no interference in selecting ministers.

            If you read the decision though, the designation of ministers must have a basis. Churches can not just declare every employee a minister.

          • streiff

            it clearly does not say that. To the contrary it says it is reserving that decision to another time.

          • iunderstand

            So we obviously disagree on some point, but I’m not sure which one.

          • Kyle-MI

            The teacher in this case was employed by the school, so how does a secular school have a 1st amendment right to no interference in selecting ministers?

            And surely you are not telling me that churches must cover all family planning of non-ministerial employees. It is not just about who is or is not a minister.

          • streiff

            and our amusement is fast waning.

  • veritaseequitas

    way down the list of rights, until nothing is left but a hollow empty shell of an America. This whole compromise thing is a pant load and needs to be viciously and vociferously shot down. If The Communist gets re-elected, any “compromise” will be come a reality PDQ.

  • carolynr

    Obama took an oath of office. He has violated it. Obamacare is a violation of the Constitution and we better get someone in Congress that has the courage (nice word for what I want to say) to impeach this guy. This is a clear violation of Church and State.

    I need to confirm this….but I am getting e-mails that this administration is threatening Army Chaplains with treason against the Commander In Chief.

    Any of you have any hardcore sources on this?

    My solution…IMPEACH HIM…there’s enough evidence.

    • irishgirl

      seems like they have been reporting something concerning the Army chaplains.

    • streiff

      I’ve really had it with this crap about “impeachment” and your statement about Army Catholic chaplains is so far removed from reality as to call your further participation on this site into question.’

      You are free to post this stuff and move one. We front pagers and moderators are the one’s left holding the bag.

      • bobmark

        but the Army chaplains is real, no disrespect intended, but maybe look into things a little before going off on people

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290147/army-silenced-chaplains-last-sunday-kathryn-jean-lopez

      • carolynr

        usurped the Constitution…then I really feel sorry for you. You are a moderator on this Conservative Site????????????? Excuse me…but I beg to disagree with you wholeheartedly…and guess what…if you are a front pager…whatever the heck that means…you haven’t been reading the articles to recognize that your rights and freedoms are disappearing by the HOUR.

        Do we or do we not have a Separation of Church and State? Y or N.

        To begin with…this mandate is unconstitutional…but then to butt the Federal Government into the tenets of a particular religion is crossing the line of separation of Church and State. The Catholic Church does not believe in providing birth control. To be very blunt…pull it out, use the rhythm system or abstain. That’s it. Now…this man wants to tell any Catholic institution including hospitals that it has to provide the morning after pill plus provide birth control!!!. NO. Besides that…why do I have to pay for that out of forced insurance for just existing! Why is it my responsibility to give money for birth control OR FOR THAT MATTER, ABORTION?

        So…streiff…if he does get this by the Congress…who sits on their hands while he continues to usurp the Constitution…My recommendation…ALL MUSLIMS HAVE TO EAT PORK….How about that…and serve it in their mosques. Does that cross the line. How about we apply that to the Jews and tell them that their Saturday service has to include one helping of PORK.

        It crosses the line. Now you want me to stop with my talk of impeachment because you don’t think I am up to “front pager” status. Let me guess…you back Romney…you sound like another elitist.

        So…if you are a moderator…and you kick me off this board because I want what we now call a president GONE…then so be it. If you are trying to limit my freedom of speech because you don’t like it….Well…before this post is gone, let me tell you…Obama’s policies are very, very similar to the policies of Hitler and he was a populist at first….all the while chanting that he was for the worker bs. Meanwhile…what happened…he was a dictator all along. BTW…did he cross the line concerning his feeling about religion…I guess so…how many people were burned alive or starved to death…because he didn’t like it. I’m getting off this post…I’m PO’d.

        • Leon H. Wolf

          Probably time to ratchet that back five or six notches. Blam.

  • jazzycmk

    On its surface, this is just Professors Obama and Sebelius emerging yet again from the faculty lounge and telling everyone that they have decided what’s best and we must learn to live with it.

    But Rubio hit on the larger stakes in his address at CPAC. This is just symptomatic of the problems with Obamacare. Pelosi wasn’t kidding when she said, “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” For once, I think Nancy was being honest. She didn’t even know.

    So now they are just making it up as they go. They can make up whatever rule and regulaion they want and just claim it is covered under the broader guidelines of Obamacare.

    Makes you wonder what will be next. Yikes.