« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Catholic Church has now challenged Obama’s mandate of providing contraceptives

By: garfieldjl (Diary)  |  April 24th, 2012 at 12:57 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Well, things are going to get interesting.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken a bold stand for religious freedom. In a recent statement, titled “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” the bishops call for repeal of contraception coverage mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services. The clarified position sets up a dramatic confrontation with the Obama administration—and would, if the bishops prevail, help preserve the religious liberty of all Americans.

The HHS mandate requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization services. It is, according to the bishops, an “unjust law.” They write: “It cannot be obeyed and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal.”

The statement is a rebuke of President Obama and the so-called accommodation his administration proposed in February. It also raises the stakes between the president and the leaders of America’s Catholic Church.

The bishops call on Catholics in America, “in solidarity with our fellow citizens,” not to obey the law. They implicitly compare the HHS regulation to a segregation-era statute, and even cite Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” In a not-so-subtle manner, the bishops tell the Obama administration that they are willing to go to prison rather than comply with the mandate’s provisions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/catholic-bishops-take-obama_640569.html

This is the last thing the Obama Regime wants, a major fight with the Catholic Church.  In all honesty, I think we could see some other religious groups jump into this.

If they can keep the focus on how Obama is violating religious liberty this will seriously hurt Obama in the general election depending on who we select as the nominee.  Not saying that to take a cheap shot at Romney, just pointing out the fact that Romney did the same thing in Massachusetts that Obama is doing now.  That means Romney can’t attack on this issue, other people can maybe do so, but it is risky.

Where Romney can hit Obama, is Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive” law in Illinois, to paint Obama as a radical.

If nothing else, I would advise people to get in touch with their pastors, ministers, rabbi, etc. to try to get other religious groups to jump into this and back the Catholic Church up.

All and all, this should be interesting to see what happens.

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • checkmate2012

    Religious freedom IS at stake for all.

  • Martin Knight

    Saw the title of this diary and the diarist’s name and was actually glad. But then I read it and of course it was just another loosely disguised “Romney can’t run on X …” piece.

  • APA Guy

    I would say the same if we were talking Newt here. We gain nothing by inserting anyone but Obama into this issue…and I think your advice to get the religious ball moving in multiple directions focused on a common aim is very well done.

    • garfieldjl

      Romney can’t use this because he did the same thing in Massachusetts while he was Governor. None of the others in the primary have or had this issue.

      We can’t criticize Obama for this while supporting someone that did the exact same thing that we are complaining about Obama doing.

      • powertothepeople

        when it comes to Romneycare or the contraceptive issue, states have a right to decide what is best for them as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others. MA wanted the HC plan by a vast majority, they still want it. I may not like it, you may not like it, but it is their right to have it.

        What Obama wants is universal care that is forced on everyone at a federal level. This is where the problem is and is why Romney can use these things against him.

        You are trying to compare apples and rock, there is no comparison, and you should stop trying.

        • garfieldjl

          Using your argument states have every right to ban citizens from having firearms, I’m not exaggerating for effect either.

          The contraceptive issue in Massachusetts is entirely relevant because if we are arguing what Obama is doing is violating the 1st Amendment, then what Romney did in Massachusetts is a Violation of the 1st Amendment.

          While states can do some things that the Federal Government can’t; states do not have the power to do things that circumvent the Bill of Rights found in the United States Constitution.

          The facts are the facts, you shouldn’t try to pretend the facts don’t exist.

          • powertothepeople

            it is painfully obvious what you are about, but that still does not excuse pure ignorance.

            There is nothing about the contraceptive issue that is in violation of the 1st amendment. Even the whole free practice of religion is not being violated due to regulations in the state of MA that each and every provider must agree to an abide by when receiving a license.

            But when you make an idiotic comment such as states have no right to ban firearms, it really demonstrates you are a true moron. Firearms are a protected right, being free to not follow state regulations is not. The two do not compare.

            MA and its voters decided they wanted HC. They decided they wanted contraceptive materials to be covered. Nothing illegal in that. If enough do not like it, which is not the case in MA, they vote in the right people to end it. States have that right and are entitled to govern their own borders except in the case of violating another persons rights or well being. The federal government does not have the right to force states into commerce. Hence, this is why Romney has a leg to stand on and why you have no clue.

            States= right to enforce their own laws, commerce, regulations, etc
            hence why MA and any other state does have the right to define its own regulation and enforce rules by which companies must pay.

            Fed= Has no constitutional right to force nation wide commerce hence why Obama has no right to mandate contraceptive.

          • The_Gadfly

            Anyone who is willing to abrogate the protections of the First Amendment does not deserve the protections of the other 26.

            This isn’t about commerce, it’s about Freedom of Religion, and while it is true that when passed the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the States, that all changed with the Civil War amendments. So no, Romney had no more “right” to impose it on Massachusetts than The Big 0 does on the whole US. The difference is, in Mass you have a legislature and a Supreme Court that are more than happy to ignore the US Constitution when it suits their purposes. Trying to whitewash Romney’s fundamental failures won’t help win him any elections.

          • powertothepeople

            you are unable to comprehend simple explanations as well. Let us try again.

            States have a right to self regulate

            States have a right to define commerce in their own state

            Business agree to abide by regulations in order to retain license

            If church does not like contraceptive rule they can, shut down, move to different state, stop accepting state funds which bring the regulation, or abide by rule

            Church is wrong that the rule is a violation of their 1st amendment, has nothing to do with it. Church cried the same thing over being told to adopt to worthy same sex couples, and was just as wrong then.

            Feds do not have power to force commerce on the states. hence why their is a big difference between a popular state HC law and contraceptive law versus the Obama forced HC and contraceptive law.

            I despise the HC law in both MA and the nation. If it came to my state, I would fight it. But if a majority of my state want it, Haley would need to sign it.

            MA voters wanted HC and they wanted contraception paid for. It is well within their rights to make it law. It is not within the constitutional rights of Obama to do it. I disagree with the laws, but Romney has the right to slam Obama over his unconstitutional forcing of commerce versus his own constitutional state laws.

      • JSobieski

        We can nonetheless criticize Obama for whatever we want. The ignorance of the public will blunt the blunting effects that you are concerned about.

        • garfieldjl

          Remember the MSM will be shilling for Obama, Romney won’t have the ability to get away with the same tricks he’s pulled in the primary thus far.

          The MSM would be pointing out the hypocracy ad-nausem, this is basic common sense, and why I don’t want Romney to be the nominee.

          I was originally posting this diary to take a swipe at Obama, but I recalled reading about what Romney pulled in Massachusetts.

          Thankfully the White House is having amateur hour atm, but I don’t expect that to last.

          It would be different if Romney admitted he screwed up and then takes Obama to task on this, then the hypocracy argument would fall flat on its face.

          • JSobieski

            Just like he did in the primaries.

            Do you think the general electorate will be more interested in these non-conservative deviations than the Republican primary voters?

        • The_Gadfly

          We can. Romney can’t. At least not without first admitting he himself made a mistake. And on that point, I don’t think Romney changing his mind on the religious freedom issue would make him seem like more of a flip-flopper than what’s already on the record.

          Moreover, there really is a very simple solution to this which provides options for both the Catholic Church and it’s follower who disagree with it and still want contraceptive policies for themselves*: The church doesn’t have to pay for the contraceptive coverage, but it can’t deny the core insurance package if the employee purchases a rider policy which covers it.

          *Not that I think it is a good idea for someone to do this. If you disagree with a fundamental tenet of the church, go find another one. Luther did, many others have followed his example. And we’ve come to the point where despite all the different denominations, we still have a set of beliefs that can be described as the core of Christianity.

  • avagreen

    ……and I do hope other groups join in to defeat this violation of freedom!

    May this attempt at curtailing this vile law have a resounding success.

    And, the free fall of the criminal mindset that was the genesis of this idea and against freedom, a deafening roar.

    • garfieldjl

      This is one fight I don’t think Obama wants to have.

      • avagreen

        Admire your spunk, garfield.

        And, your tenacity despite all the odds you’ve faced on this site. Which I’ve followed.

        { I once an autistic savant as a client who was brilliant. He was what is known as “prodigious savant” and had skills that were extraordinary, one of which was the ability to tell someone the day of the week they were born on simply be being told the date of birth.}

        Kudos to you for sticking in despite all that has happened.

        Great determination shows a healthy personality.
        My hat off to you:
        ;)

  • The_Gadfly

    Yes disobedience is required, but so is taking whatever actions are available to correct the wrong. If they only disobey and do not also sue, they have not acted faithfully.

    • Ausonius

      I have criticized the American Catholic Church here at RedState previously for its softness toward Democrats, so it is gratifying to see that they are willing to turn and recognize what is at stake.

      Yes, The Gadfly (also a great work by Shostakovich) is quite correct: suing the government over this is absolutely essential.

      I will be charitable and will assume that they may be waiting to see whether the law is overturned, so that they do not prematurely hire a battery of lawyers. :)

      On the other hand, it might be better to be prepared! One can imagine that MAObama is already preparing Plan B with some sort of covert end-around play, if the law is found unconstitutional in full or in part.

  • montani

    “That means Romney can

  • Pingback: Hien Jou

  • Pingback: Salvatore Capek

  • Pingback: Lane Reindeau

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Distillation

  • Pingback: tarnow randki

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: arredo bagno

  • Pingback: wedding planner toscana

  • Pingback: Web Design

  • Pingback: Pop Over To This Website

  • Pingback: right here

  • Pingback: Click Here

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: breastactive cream

  • Pingback: skachat karos nachalo

  • Pingback: madam lux

  • Pingback: work from home uk

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Hosea Magness

  • Pingback: Rolf Brais

  • Pingback: www.loansandbadcredit.org

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Barrie Gilford

  • Pingback: Heide Lenoue

  • Pingback: Trina Hartranft

  • Pingback: Coretta Barlow

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: Claudie Strange

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: the green coffee

  • Pingback: liqueurs

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: www.loansandbadcredit.org/

  • Pingback: reverse search phone numbers

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: how to home brew beer

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: approved in one hour

  • Pingback: kids bikes

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy