« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The First Amendment And Obamacare

The Catholic Church In America Has Religious Freedom To Shut Up and Hand Out The Abortion Pills

“Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”

James Madison

Yet another aspect of the American Affordable Care Act has caused the Obama Administration to come-a-cropper with the United States Constitution. The act has already inspired a dense thicket of law suits over its individual mandate provision that forces people to buy insurance or pay a penalty tax for not so doing. Recently, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sibelius, has added more fuel to the legal bonfire that has erupted over ObamaCare.

The law entails that all health plans provide “preventive services” free of charge. This previously included the sorts of things you would want to have to prevent disease. This would include child vaccinations, physical check-ups and other practical medical services that wise people would want from time to time. Now Kathleen Sibelius has decided to add contraception to include RU-486. Secretary Sibelius issued the following news release.

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. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services.

(www.hhs.gov)

Archbishop Timothy Dolan had previously made his concerns about this plan known to President Obama in a personal audience with the president at the White House. He had been informed that the Obamacare mandate would not be forced upon the various services and schools run by The American Catholic Church.

However, like most of what Barack Obama promises, this guarantee came with an expiration date. That expiration date was 20 January 2012. Secretary Sibelius explains below.

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law.

Timothy Dolan responded to this obvious betrayal in language that was about as forceful as you could expect to hear from a man of the cloth. He explains how the decision has now forced The Catholic Church to start funding insurance coverage for abortions and sterilizations as of 1 August 2013.

On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases — as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. (See individual mandate).

I’m not a Catholic. On a very limited, personal level, I have no skin in this particular power-struggle. But then I stop and realize the fact that our current, statist administration has once more done rough and intentional violence to the fundamental precepts of the US Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights. The First Amendment thereof reads as follows.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(HT: Wikipedia)

Catholics are bound by the Law of Moses expressed in The Decalogue not to commit murder. The Catholic Church considers an unborn child a fully-corporate, living human being. Abortion, kinetic or chemical, terminates this life and hence violates the Sixth Commandment of the Ten. Paying for this act to take place (by buying insurance or paying the penalty fee for not providing the insurance) would make the Church morally culpable for every one of these murders that occurred under the auspices of an ObamaCare-approved employer insurance plan. Sec. Sibelius has just ordered the Catholic Church to directly violate a fundamental precept of their faith.

To understand where to go from here, the church will have to ask itself a lot of questions. Do they actively enforce a moral law, or do they just dress a guy up in a clown-suit on Sunday and pass around the collection plate? Do they limit their activities to legalistic challenges and then accept any ruling that goes against their stated doctrine on when human life begins? Do they change church doctrine to appease Barack Obama and NARAL?

If they do enforce a moral law and they will not change it in search of political consensus, does The American Catholic Church shut down in protest and put The United States under interdict until our government changes its regulatory course? Or if they don’t believe they are directly subsidizing the murder of unborn children through their compliance with the mandates of ObamaCare, do they now believe in Leprechauns? Such are the questions that the power-hungry statists have posed to one of the oldest religious organizations on the face of the planet.

COMMENTS

  • RichmondG30

    However, as a Catholic, this one tops the list.

    I feel tremendous anger toward my fellow Catholics who voted for this Leftist ideologue. They turned a blind eye toward all the warning signs that were flashing bright red.

    I hope they are happy now.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      If you remember what happened next in that nursery rhyme, you know what just happened to Archbishop Dolan.

  • Ron Ferraro

    …they are a day late and a dollar short. As a practicing Catholic, I was appalled at the silence and even support of this abomination of a law when it was still being debated. As a practicing Catholic, I and anyone else with half a brain could see where this was headed (forcing institutions to support practices to which they are morally opposed), yet they sat silent. So while I agree with Archbishop Dolan in NY, and our own Bishop Loverde here in DC when they criticize the Obama brown shirts from forcing their will on the masses, I want to ask them where they when there was still a chance to stop it? Instead, we heard homily after homily in Mass each week extolling the virtues of this wonderful law, and why as Catholics we should all support it.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      1) The RCC in America all but tells it’s members to vote BHO out of office. Every Sunday. A vote for BHO = a vote for mechanized abortion that you personally pay for.

      2) The GOP Congress gets bombarded w/ angry phone calls and emails from an energized RCC base. “We trust you bastiches to be pro-life. You have COngress and the White House. Put up or shut up GOP.”

      That’s the level of aggressiveness the RCC has to apply to stop this.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Also, virtually anything a religeous person does outside of a consecrated church ground could be construed as a secular function. Interpret the 1st Amendment in that narrow a sense, and there is no longer a real Constitutional protection for freedom of religion.

    • MikeG

      under Bishop Loverde, and I don’t remember EVER hearing even a single homily preached in support of Obamacare. I’m sure that is not the case in many parts of the country, but I’ve got to stick up for my parish, my diocese, and my bishop on this one. The USCCB as a collective body may have seriously screwed up in 2008, but I don’t think Bishop Loverde is in any way responsible for that. Quite the opposite: I’ve heard from priests in our diocese that he actually took a lot of heat at the USCCB from some of the other bishops for calling them out on this since before the 2008 election.

      • streiff

        in Loverde.

        The USCCB was generally opposed to ObamaCare though I don’t think that filtered down to every pulpit. The real break point in the church was the coven of nuns who supported ObamaCare in defiance of the USCCB. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/03/17/nuns-support-health-care-reform-defy-bishops.html

      • Ron Ferraro

        …but my parish, and those in my surrounding area, all within the Diocese of Arlington, most certainly did preach in support of national health care, under the auspices of taking care of the poor, helping those who can’t help themselves, etc.. Perhaps Bishop Loverde wasn’t publicly supporting it, but there wasn’t a broad public denouncement of it either, from him or any other Bishop, even when many predicted it would result in the exact situation we are faced with now: government bullying religious institutions into actions they are morally opposed to. And to me, that’s almost as bad as supporting it outright.

        • cfoy65

          I’m in the Orlando Diocese and O’bama’s health bill was extolled on a regular basis. Of course, we have a new bishop since, so I don’t know if that would have been a factor. I suspect, our parish would have continued to praise it regardless, as we seem to get a lot of leftly propoganda from time to time. Gee…couldn’t see this one coming… and the bishops act surprised, that’s what maddens me the most.

  • veritaseequitas

    finally have something cogent to gripe about. C’mon y’all get on it, this is what you have been waiting for, let’s hear your arguments now that the government is overstepping its bounds into religion. Can’t wait.

    • Matthew Morris

      Not even crickets. Shocked!

      • aesthete

        libertarian publications.

        • Matthew Morris

          Actually I had in mind the leftward, no praying at school allowed types. The L party though is a reliable bunch.

          • aesthete

            Then I agree, but consistency’s never been much worth for liberals on any issue, esp civil liberties.

  • DerKrieger

    …to provide these “services” to me is more of an abomination than the individual mandate itself.

    By what constitutional power does the federal government dictate what private insurers must provide to their customers?

    When Obamacare first passed I was more outraged by the HHS dictated minimum coverage diktat than I was by the individual mandate because I have and will always plan to have coverage. However, the terms of my coverage and the coverage options are my business alone. This is an example of the infantilization of the public by the elites who want to treat us as either victims or children unable to make intelligent choices on our own.

    Obamacare is an abomination to personal, religious, and corporate liberty and must be removed root and branch before it metastasizes into further erosions of our God given freedoms.

  • DerKrieger

    …will learn a lesson here. The RCC sides with the Left when it comes to anything regarding the “poor” or illegal aliens. Now that their deal with the Devil has bitten them they will consider undoing their “entangling alliance”.

    • Ausonius

      Idiots and morons all!!!!

      As I wrote elsewhere yesterday, when you shake hands with the Devil, check your hand.

      The Democrat Party stands for nothing – even in its supposed care for “the poor” – acceptable in any religion, as far as I am concerned.

      Pushing irresponsibility, dividing people by ethnicity, furthering the sexual revolution, ever limiting human economic freedom, and now attacking freedom of religion: which faith supports such things?

  • OCBill

    The left’s argument will be that Catholics can practice their faith all they want in the privacy of their churches, but they have no religious right to own and operate hospitals.

    This battle was fought and lost a long time ago when it came to the right of landlords to refuse to rent to unmarried couples, etc. SPOILER: they have no rights.

    The camel is now all the way in the tent. It’s eating most of our stuff and urinating all over the rest of it. Welcome to your progressive future.

  • OCBill

    The left’s argument will be that Catholics can practice their faith all they want in the privacy of their churches, but they have no religious right to own and operate hospitals.

    This battle was fought and lost a long time ago when it came to the right of landlords to refuse to rent to unmarried couples, etc. SPOILER: they have no rights.

    The camel is now all the way in the tent. It’s eating most of our stuff and urinating all over the rest of it. Welcome to your progressive future.

  • bcochran1981

    I’m a member of and attend a Baptist church here in NE Florida. The church also runs a K-12 school. They offer insurance for their employees. This decision, unless I’m missing something, also affects them. It will affect all churches won’t it? Could we actually see a widespread alliance of denominations on this?

    • bonnman

      and so the constitutional question might be does the health care requirement burden religious practice? Alternatively, would an exemption of one particular religion constitute a government “endorsement” meaning Catholic churches get a free ride while other religions that do not share the same beliefs have to pay.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        The last time a similar question involving a different law went to the USSC, the USG lost 9-0.

        http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-contraception-20120131,0,5324593.story

      • streiff

        a parochial school, Catholic hospital, or Catholic social services agency works under the direct supervision of the bishop/archbishop of the diocese. They are not “arguably” secular.

        • bonnman

          Just because they are directed by a religious leader doesn’t mean the activity is automatically a religious practice or religious expression and is protected. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio (NY) argued against a contraceptive requirement based on a too narrow definition of “religious employer”. Catholic Charities lost.

          I think not offering any exemption, even a very narrow one, goes too far and so this will probably be settled in the courts.

          But I can’t say I fully agree with the Church’s logic here, they don’t want to directly pay for something they object to but are obviously ok with or turning a blind eye to indirectly paying. That is, they pay their employees, who then can go out and use that money for whatever morally corruptible activity they want. Would the Church be more open to an HSA without restrictions?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            >>>But I can?t say I fully agree with the Church?s logic here, they don?t want to directly pay for something they object to but are obviously ok with or turning a blind eye to indirectly paying. That is, they pay their employees, who then can go out and use that money for whatever morally corruptible activity they want.

            So if a an employee of the Catholic CHurch had a deacon or monk follow them around on every shopping trip or visit to the doctor’s office and pay for them after checking each item out to make sure it was church approved, would that satisfy your concern? Or is it your fundamental position that no church has a right to enforce its moral doctrines on any individual as a condition of continued employment by that church?

          • bonnman

            Although the first choice would make for a hilarious reality show.

            My point is this seems to be about direct funding vs. indirect funding, thats why I suggested an HSA.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            I have no idea where the church stands on that.

      • bcochran1981

        but the mission statement of our church’s school is as follows: “The mission of University Christian School is to lead every student to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ while providing the highest quality Christian education in an environment of genuine love and concern for each student and parent.” The primary function of the school is to reach kids with Christ. It is repeatedly and openly said by our Pastor that the school is an outreach ministry of the church. That doesn’t strike me as a primarily secular function.

      • lineholder

        Early in our nations history, it was primarily charitable organizations that were involved in providing health care. They operated under the doctrine of charitable immunity. Over the years, the number of health care entities sponsored by religious organizations has gradually decreased, partially due to increasing regulatory measures imposed by the government and partly due to court rulings such as the one in Darling vs. Charleston where the doctrine of charitable immunity was replaced with the principle of respondeat superior and the doctrine of corporate negligence.

        Simply put, the goals of the left are to drive reference to issues pertaining to morals, ethics, conscience, and religious beliefs out of both our schools and our health care system. The Hippocratic oath has long been “First, do no harm”. “Harm” was defined primarily in the context of morals, ethics, and conscience, most often stemming from religious beliefs. The intent is to replace this with government as the ulterior authority defining “harm”. In other words, government defines the scope of morals, ethics and conscience to be applied to any given health care situation.

        Within a religious context, if the beliefs of that religion support the premise that life begins at conception, then morally and ethically, there is a Constitutional basis on which a healthcare entity that is backed and supported by a denomination can substantiate their position on refusing to perform abortions, refusing to be involved in activities relating to abortion, and refusing to require employees who are “conscientious objectors” from participating in these kinds of activities.

        Religious entities who are still involved in either provision of health care or provision of education, particularly those who are self-funding and receive no financial assistance from the government, should and must refuse to go quietly into the night on this one.

    • streiff

      Baptists don’t have a doctrinal problem with birth control. Of the major religious denominations only the Roman Catholic and Orthodox oppose abortion without various exceptions.

      So this rule will only have an impact on the Roman Catholic Church.

      • bcochran1981

        with birth control, they do have one with abortion. http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssanctity.asp And since this mandate specifically deals with abortifacients, I’m thinking that does put it at loggerheads with the Baptist faith.

        • streiff

          affects the SBC.

      • Matthew Morris

        I am not aware of many “denominations” within the realm of mainstream protestant orthodoxy that reflect positions on abortion in their doctrinal statements. However I would venture to say that most in leadership are 100% pro-life, no exceptions.

        • streiff

          you are correct. Otherwise, not so much.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Denominational-stand-on-the-issue-of-abortion.htm

            Fortunately, Southern Baptists and other evangelicals far outnumber them.

          • Matthew Morris

            I am not sure what portion of Protestantism is comprised of Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans. Around here it would seem a dwindling share. Most good churches of any size around here (usually non-denominational) have pretty sound doctrinal statements and mention nothing about social policy. Just theology.

            But if PCA mentions abortion in their doctrinal statement, I am unpleasantly surprised. (PCUSA is another matter. Would not be surprised. Including if “acceptable” exceptions were outlined.)

          • Mugged_by_reality

            Please don’t broad-brush. There are at least three major Lutheran church bodies in the US (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod) that strongly oppose abortion and abortifacient-type birth control on doctrinal grounds.

          • pm270x

            The ELCA already provides abortion coverage for all workers in or out of the faith.

            The ELCA has now split into 2 additional denominations due to their recent practice of ordaining women and gay pastors.

            LCMS and WELS don’t support abortion on any level or in any capacity.

      • lineholder

        There’s a difference between pre-conception and post-conception, streiff. Most of the Baptist churches I know do tend to at least contraceptive usage that is pre-conception. The usage content for the “morning after pill” most definitely is post-conception. I’m not sure how the Baptist church will respond to this one.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          This is a potential chemical abortificant out to 9 weeks. We’re almost talking 2nd Trimester abortion with the so-called “Morning After Pill.”

          • lineholder

            The sole purpose for this “pill” is to abort a baby via methods that don’t involve any type of medical procedure, invasive or otherwise. It’s sole purpose is to be used post-conception. It’s useless in any other context. And if I remember correctly, it can’t just be handed out. The process for prescription of this drug requires confirmation of pregnancy from a licensed physician.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            How each individual protestant denomination responds may vary, but I believe that you’ve just effectively called a spade a spade.

          • lineholder

            I went back to double-check, and anyone 17 years or older can obtain this from a pharmacy without a prescription. Ages 16 and under are required to obtain a prescription in most states, but not all of them. (Do states have any options under this ruling from DHHS?)

            FDA approval is for 18 and over only. Wonder how they are allowing it to be used for women under this age?

          • lineholder

            They keep Plan B “morning after pill” from hitting the shelves in drug stores, but require health care entities to provide access to it???

            http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/plan-hhs-prevents-morning-pill-hitting-drug-store/story?id=15104253

            The article also explains the shift to 17 years of age.

            Legal question…is this a new opening for claims of medical negligence if a provider refuses to provide patients with information or refuses to provide prescriptions to those under 17 years of age?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Judging from his prior record in Ill. and all of his public speech on abortion, BHO should want Plan B on the shelf right next to the Trojan-Enz. But then again, he does have to face a certain amount of public disdain for such a move. Parents of teenagers probably vote more frequently than youth in their 20′s. That’s my guess as to why the DHHS didn’t greenlight Plan B completely.

          • lineholder

            Where did you get the 9 weeks figure? Just curious and I’d like to see context and rationale to support using it that far out.

            Everything I’m reading indicates that it has to be used within five days after unprotected sex occurs. In fact, information provided for the morning after pill states very specifically that it can NOT be used if the person is already pregnant. Two reasons (1) it’s ineffective if a fertilized egg has already been implanted in the uterus and (2) it can cause birth defects. (The results are inconclusive at this point, but the potential risk is mentioned).

          • greyeagle

            It is also a very dangerous drug and can cause bleeding requiring hospitalization. Yes, it would be considered a second trimester abortion.

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        The church of Christ (not the Universal church of Christ that Obama attended) opposes abortions, only allowing for the exception of the mother’s life being in danger (see article below which sets forth what is believed and taught). That opposition is based solely on Biblical teaching. By way of information, each local church is autonomous, i.e., we have no hierarchy like Catholics or Southern Baptists do.

        ChristianCourier

        As for contraception, from another article here:

        No birth control device should be employed which destroys the life of a fertilized ovum. Yet, in many places, both abortion (intrauterine murder) and infanticide (post-birth murder)?really an artificial distinction?are accepted forms of birth control. These evils must be opposed in vigorous (non-violent) ways. If a contraceptive device is known to cause the termination of a fertilized ovum (e.g., the intrauterine device [IUD] and certain forms of oral contraceptives), such should not be utilized by the Christian. This is a matter that surely warrants careful study.

        • streiff

          is an exception. As has been shown, the health of the mother exception can be stretched to cover loss of self esteem. No reason to think the same can’t be done with a life exception.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            speaking only as to what I’ve been taught all my life within the church of Christ and Biblical teaching, in our view that exception is strictly interpreted to mean a direct choice between the physical life of the mother vs. the life of the child, even with an emphasis on is there any way both can be saved, with none of the liberal mumbo jumbo in between. I fully understand that some may claim this exception to cover anything and everything in order to excuse their actions. I’m just saying that is not what the church of Christ teaches.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I knew there was some sort of connection there. I grew up in the church of Christ.

            As for the life of the mother exception, I had this explained to me by a doctor once.

            Twice I’ve been on the board of directors for a Crisis Pregnancy Center. When we were looking to define our official statement for the Center on life and abortion, this issue came up.

            The doctor explained to me that this issue never really comes up. In a crisis, the medical team is always trying to save both lives. Sometimes during that process of saving the mother, the baby does not survive.

            One scenario where this actually comes up is with an eptopic pregnancy. While I would never ask a woman to risk her life in this case, I do know of one woman who is the result of a successful eptopic pregnancy. She’s in her 40s now, I believe.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            You don’t have to answer that. LOL. However, it may explain why I agree with a lot of your comments.

            Yep, as regards the life of the mother exception, I warrant it’s about as rare as the rape/incest exception, especially with today’s technology providing the means to save more lives than ever. And I’ve certainly heard of more mothers making the choice to risk their lives and ultimately lose them in order for their babies to live over the other option. There were 2 diaries about just that scenario within the last few months here at redstate.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            While I grew up in the church, I am no longer a member. I’m in a Presbyterian (PCA) church now. But yes, I was think that our church origins being the same is a reason why we seem to be in agreement often.

          • aesthete

            than either the rape or incest exceptions, which is the reason that churches and other religious institutions provide exceptions for true “life/health of mother” cases, rather than rape/incest.

            The incest exception I find especially appalling; incest as a one-time occurrence rather than a trend does not usually result in significant health complications later down the line — and at any rate, when has a person’s right to exist been predicated on their genetic superiority?

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            .
            .
            .

        • bcochran1981

          Our church just switched from independent to SBC. Its not hierarchal. Each SBC affiliated church remains autonomous. Think more co-op.

        • pm270x

          Southern Baptist have no hierarchical structure after their grant is paid off. All Southern Baptist Churches function as non-denominational congregations once they’re able to financially hold their own.

  • Uma Richie

    do you find any of this amusing, in terms of disagreement with the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception? Do you feel even the slightest bit of schadenfreude with regard to the Church’s position on birth control?

    The reason I ask is this: I’m pessimistic about what is to come. The Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control is a perennial source of humor and a target of ridicule. I suspect that the progressives have chosen this as their opening salvo against religious freedom because it will draw little sympathy outside devoutly Catholic circles.

    We’ve all heard the “First they came for the X” poem, but I fear that many will not recognize the situation for what it is if they sympathize with the HHS Department’s views on contraception.

    Thank you.

  • Zaber

    I can tell you that is one of the reasons I found it hard to follow the Catholic doctrine, and I know a lot of Catholics feel the same way – they either confess that sin, or they just ignore it ..

    I even had a priest tell me during pre-marriage counseling in the early 1990s that we “should have as many children as we can support, not as many as we can”, with a wink and a nudge.

    • Paul_Zummo

      Who, mercifully, is cycling out of circulation towards retirement. I can only thank God that most of the priests today are actually Catholics and not Episcopalian wannabes.

      • Zaber

        I should point out he was talking strictly about contraception/birth control.. NOT abortion.

    • Uma Richie

      are going to bite us in the rear, I think.

      Thanks for your reply.

      • Zaber

        ..Catholics using condoms instead of playing baby roulette when they have urges would not be a horrible thing. You don’t really expect that people will have a couple of children and then just stop having sex, do you?

        The doctrine is outdated – large families are all well and good, but having a large family when you don’t make enough to support said large family is counterproductive to the family and to society.

        Like I said, a lot of Catholics do use protection – they just ignore the proscription against it or confess it anonymously. Nobody besides the Vatican has hard and fast feelings in favor of the ban – most Catholics would probably be thrilled if it was removed.

        • Uma Richie

          and that worries me. I hope the faithful (of all denominations) who don’t respect the Church’s doctrine will at least support our right to hold and follow it.

          Just FTR, I am a practicing Catholic who has been using Church approved family planning for nearly 12 years. The invention of the digital thermometer has made natural family planning (NFP) extremely accurate (see link below if interested), and I daresay, given the side-effects of BCPs, if digital thermometers had been developed before the pill, NFP wouldn’t be such a punchline.

          It’s an unfortunately well-kept secret.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

          • Zaber

            I don’t think condoms should be provided by health insurance, regardless of faith. Birth control is a choice, and if you choose to use it, you should pay out of pocket for it.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            NT.

  • Michael Dugas

    to get out of the medical and charitable business. That will make that many more people dependent on the government which , as we all know, is the Leftist church and religion. Increased dependency means increased support for them and their policies for human nature dictates that most people will support who ever they believe is helping them i.e. the almost complete support of the Left by Americans of African descent. Even if that help leaves them as nothing more than slaves to government.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    What is the baby like at this time?

    During the time frame that RU486 is operative, the baby is undergoing a rapid period of development.

    It is at about the fifth week of pregnancy (measured from a woman’s last menstrual period) that a mother first begins to suspect she is pregnant, so this is likely to be about the earliest that the chemical abortifacient is used. At this point, the child is about three weeks old (14) and approximately 2mm long (about 1/10 of an inch). (15) Even by this time, however, the baby’s nervous system has begun to form (16) and his or her heart is likely to have already begun its first beats. (17) The child’s heart will be beating strongly and steadily by the time he or she is just three and a half weeks old. (18)

    The effectiveness of the RU486, or mifepristone, method begins to decline after 49 days, or 7 weeks of pregnancy. (19) By that time, the baby will be five weeks old and will have increased in size to 8mm, and his or her face, arms, and legs will be distinguishable. (20)

    Before the end of the 9th week of pregnancy (7 weeks for the baby), the outer extreme of mifepristone’s effectiveness, (21) the child’s ears, fingers and toes will have formed and he or she will be 18mm, or nearly an inch tall, from crown to rump. (22)

    http://www.nrlc.org/RU486/ru486info.html#What is the baby like at this time?

    • lineholder

      No doctor in their right mind is going to want to leave themselves wide open to the potential for a lawsuit pertaining to birth defects that may/may not be associated with the morning after pill. Even if the test results are inconclusive at this point, the best standard of practice principle would apply in the eyes of the law. As a defensive measure, the health care community would probably concur on conducting an EPT prior to providing a prescription for this drug. Especially in states where it is prohibited by law to provide the morning after pill to an patient under the age of 16.

      If that does become the best standard measure of practice, would it be possible to require the abortion industry to adhere to it?

      I wasn’t doubting you, RMJ. The differences pertaining to usage just made me curious.

      • lineholder

        Plan B is called “the morning after pill”. RU486 is a true abortion pill. You are very much so in the right. I got the contexts confused. Sorry. RU486 does require prescription, regardless of situational context.

        Talk about really sick…have you read this article about “abortion via telemedicine”? It uses RU486.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/health/policy/09video.html?ref=mifeprexru486drug

  • lineholder

    Here’s the site address to the bill

    http://rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=3c291825-857a-4b2d-b108-1ca8c983be94

    This is in direct response to the ruling made by DHHS.

  • runner12

    Christians would be asked to support something that they believe to be against their conscience. If the move includes the “abortion pill”, many other Christian groups will also be in opposition to this move.

    Thid is a violation of peoples’ religious freedom. They should not be forced to pay for something that they find morally objectionable.

    I hope the Catholic Church and other Christians will join together and raise an outcry against this unconstitutional move Obama.

    • runner12

      Spellcheck/ that would be “This”

    • greyeagle

      However, that abortion pill is against my Christian beliefs.

  • pm270x

    Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

    http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/HosannaTabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church__Sch_v_EEOC_No_10553_201

    http://www.becketfund.org/hosannatabor/

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/01/what-comes-after-hosanna-tabor