WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Friday he has found a solution to a birth-control uproar that will protect religious liberty but also ensure women have access to free contraception, as he rushed to defuse an election-year issue that threatened to overtake his administration.
Capping weeks of growing controversy, Obama announced he was backing off a newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their religious beliefs. Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free contraception directly from health insurance companies.
“Religious liberty will be protected and a law that requires free preventative care will not discriminate against women,” Obama said in an appearance in the White House briefing room.
“I understand some folks in Washington want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be. I certainly never saw it that way,” Obama said. “This is an issue where people of good will on both sides of the debate have been sorting through some very complicated questions.”
Obama’s abrupt shift was an attempt to satisfy both sides of a deeply sensitive debate and, most urgently, to end a mounting political nightmare for the White House.
Although the administration had originally given itself more than year to work out the details of the new birth control coverage requirement for religious employers, the president acknowledged that the situation had become untenable and demanded a swift solution.
Congressional Republicans as well as GOP presidential hopefuls were beating up on Obama relentlessly over the issue, and even Democrats and liberal groups allied with the Roman Catholic church were defecting.
“After the many genuine concerns that have been raised over the last few weeks, as well as frankly the more cynical desire on the part of some to make this into a political football, it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option. That we needed to move this faster,” Obama said. He said that he directed the Department of Health and Human Services last week to speed up the process from a matter of months to days.
Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work, a provision of Obama’s health care law that he insisted must remain. But religious universities and hospitals that see contraception as an unconscionable violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to step in to do so.
The leader of a Catholic organization and a prominent women’s group both expressed initial support for the changes.
“The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed,” Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, a trade group representing Catholic hospitals that had fought against the birth control requirement, said in a statement.
Planned Parenthood also backed the revisions, saying the Obama administration was still committed to ensuring all women have access to birth control coverage no matter where they work.
“We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits,” said Cecile Richards, the women’s group president.
By keeping free contraception for employers at religious workplaces — but providing a different way to do it — Obama was able to assert he gave no ground on the basic principle of full preventative care that matters most to Obama.
Yet, it also was clear that the president felt he had no choice but to retreat on a three-week-old policy in the face of a fierce political furor that showed no signs of cooling.
Officials said Obama has the legal authority to order insurance companies to provide free contraception coverage directly to workers. He will demand it in a new rule.
Following an intense White House debate that led to the original policy, officials said Obama seriously weighed the concerns over religious liberty, leading to the revamped decision.
Before announcing the revamped policy at the White House, Obama called Keehan, Richards and Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
But the change just led to more criticism from some of Obama’s opponents. Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady said the revamped rule marked a “full-scale retreat by a disconnected president who now knows that Washington shouldn’t force American to abandon their religious convictions.”
It was just on Jan. 20 that the Obama administration announced that religious-affiliated employers — outside of churches and houses of worships — had to cover birth control free of charge as preventative care for women. These hospitals, schools and charities were given an extra year to comply, until August 2013, but that concession failed to satisfy opponents, who responded with outrage.
Catholic cardinals and bishops across the country assailed the policy in Sunday Masses. Republican leaders in Congress promised emergency legislation to overturn Obama’s move. The president’s rivals in the race for the White House accused him of attacking religion. Prominent lawmakers from Obama’s own party began openly deriding the policy.
The sentiment on the other side, though, was also fierce. Women’s groups, liberal religious leaders and health advocates pressed Obama not to cave in on the issue.
The furor has consumed media attention and threatened to undermine Obama’s re-election bid just as he was in stride with improving economic news. Political reality forced the White House to come up with a solution to a complex matter must faster than anticipated.
Under the new policy, religious employers will not be required to offer contraception and will not have to refer their employees to places that provide it. Instead, the employer’s insurance company must provide birth control for free in a separate arrangement with workers who want it.
The change will still take affect with an extra year built in, in August 2013.
Already, 28 states had required health insurance plans to cover birth control before the federal regulations were issued.
However, they appear to have differing exemptions for religious employers.
Obama’s health care law requires most insurance plans to cover women’s preventative services, without a co-pay, starting on Aug. 1, 2012. Those services include well-women visits, domestic violence screening and contraception, all designed to encourage health care that many women may otherwise find unaffordable.
The White House says covering contraception saves insurance companies money by keeping women healthy. But the plan is likely to meet resistance from insurers. Although administration officials are right that contraception is cost effective, insurers may well argue that it’s not free, either. And the industry might balk at what amounts to a coverage mandate on it.
Without adjusting his stand, Obama has risked alienated Catholics who have become courted swing voters in such pivotal political states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. In 2008, Obama won 54 percent of the total Catholic vote, compared to 45 percent for Republican John McCain.
As the week wore on, the White House increasingly signaled that a change was coming.
Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, said in a radio interview Thursday that “there is going to be a significant attempt to work this out and there is time to do that.”
Outside advocates were urging a quick resolution.
“As a Catholic I don’t want to hear about this in Mass every week until the election,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats For Life of America. “I don’t think it’s good for the party and I don’t think it’s good for Obama’s re-election chances.”
Associated Press writers Erica Werner and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this story.
I need votes so I’ll force someone else to pay for it. Unfunded mandates are the Obama way. Lets sell the White House and have him live in an urban tent with the Occupiers. Stupid is what stupid is! Anyone but this clown for President.
I’m not a big fan of the guy either, but unfunded mandates did not start with Obama, and he certainly hasn’t yet pushed as many on us as some of his predecessors.
People will still be paying their insurance companies to have these services in one form or another. “Stupid” is not providing access to prevenative birth control to American women.
I understand that jobs are scarce and women should have access, however when you work for a company or organization you need to accept their culture and not insist on your own. Just as we ask immigrants to assimilate, so must employees. Freedom is the American way not mandates so if you are unhappy move on. No one is forcing you to work there!
That kind of logic is silly though. For example, you can’t be an employer that pays below minimum wage and then claim that that is just the culture of your business and that your employees aren’t being forced. The law as it stands requires contraceptives for women, that is the standard. Just as is the standard of having a minimum wage.
Why should have to blindly accept the misguded “culture”? And are jobs so readily available?
As elsewhere, this is a good compromise, especially for church run organizations that aren’t really faith based but independent businesses.
What’s wrong with the employer accepting the general culture. Who is more representative of the culture; the 95% of women who use contraceptives or a few old men wearing dresses and raping children?
Snapperific!
Best evidence I have seen yet that you believe the Constitution and the freedoms enumerated there are irrelevant. Whats next on your list?
Unenumerated rights, 9th amendment?
“the 95% of women who use contraceptives” really is that a valid % or a making a point figure?
That’s the % of US women that use contraceptives. It is a fact.
Really??? Oh nevermind……..you’re not worth the effort.
No one is denying ANYONE birth control! If women want it while they are employed BY CHOICE at a Catholic hospital, charity etc then they can obtain it on their own. If they don’t like the insurance benefits at their job they can seek employment elsewhere. ALL large organizations choose insurance policies based on what they (the employer) wants covered and what they don’t want covered. This is no exception. The government should not step in and DICTATE what is or is not to be covered. Period.
jst curious r you a man?
How is this an unfunded mandate?
“I need support for my misguided, ill-informed, religious pronouncements”. Could be said of the Catholic priests.
This is why I can no longer support the president, every time he runs into resistance he rolls over! He had a good policy that protected the rights of women, stand behind what you believe in! You are never going to please everybody, but at least have the testical fortitude to stand behind your beliefs. Pres. Obama and Mr. Romney are cut from the same cloth, they seem to do whatever appeals to the electorate at the moment.
I’ll write in Ron Paul on the ballot, yes some of his ideas are out there, but at least he doesn’t constantly flip-flop like these two!
So how did he roll over? He found a compromise that both sides could live with. The needs of both sides are addressed with the outcome still being the same. That is exactly what a leader should be seeking to do, especially in a democracy where you are elected to serve the needs of all the people, not just a certain segment.
Was that your position for Bush I and Bush II when they compromised?
When did they ever compromise or come up with an alternate solution that appeased both sides?
I’ll amend my own response to say that Bush 1 was much more open to compromise than his son and it probably cost him re-election. It did not lower my respect for the man at the time and he earned my support and vote both in 1988 and 1992.
I was never a fan of Dubya, though, and given a chance to change my mind after 8 years, would still never vote for him.
Right – Bush 1 compromised and lost the election as Clinton etal flooded the airways with “no more taxes” . Then Clinton turned around and didn;t compromise and shut the government down and because of such media support
Bush II compromised on many items – I assume primarily to negotiate continued funding for the war on terror.
My biggest issue is with the blanket media support – both overt but mainly by omission for any and all democratic candidates.
….
HOPE he dosen’t flip flop and CHANGE his mind again next week ! This is just one more crack in the anti socialism wall that this country has built up over the years. ” Officials said Obama has the legal authority ” …….he has the legal authority to have me shot also , it’ only a matter of time ! It really sucks that this country has two flip floppers bending to the will of special interests in order to gain election. Where has democracy gone ? Oh and I didn’t even mention the fact that the insurance companies are going to GIVE something away. We really are hurting for a true leader in this country , it’s a pity that neither major party can come up with one !
Nah, not shot….just detained indefinitely without trial in some secret prison.
This was not a flip-flop. The objective goals were met with a different solution to attaining them. Both sides of the issue came away satisfied. I’d call that the kind of leadership we need more of.
Right
Just like Bush did, time after time.
Enlighten us, please.
Feel free to move to another country and complain.See how long it takes for you to get really shot there.
Good choice !
This right here is why healthcare has no business on the political stage.
Tell that to insurance companies who spend more each year on lobbiests than they do in taxes.
Pay your premiums because you have to have insurance but I’m sorry, we don’t cover that. We don’t cover that and we certainly don’t cover that!
If Catholics aren’t for birth control… why aren’t there a lot more famlies with 5+ kids?
Because Catholics have succumb to the culture. All protestant churches were against contraception until starting in the 1930’s. Christians have chosen to ignore God’s First Commandment, “Be fruitful and multiply”.
We have laws and rules in society most people ignore and disobey, but that doesn’t mean they’re bad laws, for example drinking under 21. Should churches and society cave in just because people don’t like the law or teaching?
Wow! Have you got your Commandments messed up! It’s not even one of them.
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
Yes smarty pants it was His first command after He created Man and Woman. The Ten Commandments He gave to Moses aren’t His only commands.
Even the Torah doesn’t consider that commandment as one of the original 600 or so, plus with only 2 people (theoretically) on earth at the ‘time’, it would’ve applied to His wishes at that point. I feel that even He would now say “Whoa! The earth can only support so much! I gave you a brain with free will, but you’re not using it!”
That’s how a Harvard School of Theology graduate friend explained that passage to me (paraphrased)
Edit: School of Divinity
Ain’t worth arguing about, just like the political aspect of this story…..
You are aware that “subdue” and “dominion” are misinterpretations, or evidence that the English language has evolved in 400 years.
I think it’s time for the Catholics to declare “Mission Accomplished” on the “Be fruitful, and multiply” stuff.
We’ve already subdued the earth. We are now busy destroying the various animal and plant groups.
Taken literally,” be fruitful and multiply”, then even allowing the rhythm method is against god’s commandment …. couples should be having as many children as they can have before a woman reaches menopause. If a woman marries at the age of 18 then potentially she is capable of giving birth to 25 to 30 kids … who is she to say that she is not able to nurture that number or that her body is unable to withstand all those births when it is what god has commanded of her? And what male can say he can not provide for that number of children without disobeying that commandment?
Are you having as many children as possible or are you disobeying the commandment?
First off I never have used birth control and had as many as God blessed me with. You need to read books written by anthropologist regarding other cultures that don’t use birth control. They do not have 25-30 children. The average woman would only have 7-8. You are thinking as someone in modern society who gives birth, bottle feeds, leave child in day care, starts child on solids early and has all the modern conveniences to not really nurture a child. My children were born 2-4 years apart. I know people who used every birth control method out there and had children much closer together.
If every woman even had 7-8 how do we feed them love them the way they should be loved,provide clothing and housing in this day and age?
Maybe in bible time communities were stronger and not about greed.It is expensive to live supporting yourself these days
Just being a woman does not make a good Mother Just watch the news
Evidently you’re accustomed to “single” motherhood as what a mother is…these days. You don’t mention a man/husband in your comment at all. (Single motherhood has reached outrageous proportions)
When a man and woman plan well, acquire an education…position themselves as responsible adults, get married and have an income that will support themselves and their future children……. then that is the set-up that has the best chance of providing proper housing, clothing, food, medical care, their basic needs and all the love, protection and guidance that children deserve.
I won’t go into how easy it is to prevent STD’s and pregnancies but…..the women who are single, uneducated and lacking even basic skills for employment as well as way too young to care for a child……the expense of that meager lifestyle for “single mommy” and baby falls squarely on the backs of the tax-payers…including those couples and families who have done all the right things to support their own families. It’s insane as well as “unfair”
Is it really possible to convince you that dim-witted teenagers running around pregnant (in high school corridors) ended up pregnant because they lacked access to free birth control? The same goes for women in their twenties. Even the most basic condom (any dummy can afford condoms) prevents pregnancy and most important of all…..STD’s.
I’m definitely thinking we are on opposite sides of this issue. Assumptions and Stereotyping really confuse me
I wish Men would not comment on Women’s Health.
Socially speaking Not every Women is lucky enough to be blessed with loving and educated Parents.
a lot of assumptions made here
Education and controlling unwanted pregnancies are needed. It’s about a woman’s choice in her Health Care. Undoubtedly teens should use abstinence as birth control.
Birth control can prevent “Furtile Mertyl” from having to even consider abortion if she’s maybe on her 7th child.
Women are still being depicted as needing a man to survive.
what this woman has is a Partner who love and supports me and my loved ones
Sex isn’t healthcare.
Abortion isn’t healthcare. (except for a miniscule percentage)
Catholic Church belief is that Health Care is a Universal Human Right and so is mine enough said:)
Anyone wanting to go back prohibition of contraception has got to be male. I didn’t use the word man. A real man would be smarter.
Contraception is not the issue and you so much as admitted it in your other posts.
The evening news back a few days said that 93% of Catholics use birth control today. I don’t remember if that was nationally or world wide……
Where is the separation of church and state? If companies are supposed to provide healthcare that includes birth control, and the church employe’s people, then make them do it. Simple as that. Frankly I’d rather see universal/national healthcare in place. Everyone gets covered.
Good point. Just because you work for a religiously affiliated organization doesn’t mean that you, as an employee, practice that religion. You should be able to reserve the right to health care services, no matter your employer.
I think we could consider this solution the proverbial foot in the door of universal/national healthcare?
I wish it was but I doubt we will ever see it.Read “Deadly Spin”by Wendell Potter.R’s are too beholden to the insurance cos.
Never mind that pesky prohibition clause – “congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with respect to freedom of religion. Nope. Nothing to see here. Keep marching down the slope of secular totalitarianism.
100% right. This whole thing tramples the Constitution.
The fact that insured women have contraceptives included on their insurance plans tramples the Constitution? The document is that weak that it can be trampled by something that is only tenuously tied to religion and the exercise of?
No its not the contraception itself. It is the interference by the state in Religion. In effect telling the religion what its beliefs can be.
I am also not sure the interpretation of the law by HHS that laid down this rule is what was intended by Congress. There might be some Constitutional issues there as well.
They are not telling a religion what to do. They are telling institutions that hire and serve the public, that accept public funding and tax exemptions, that accept and server the public by providing non religious services that they need to provide insurance covering contraceptives. There is a perfectly legal way for churches to avoid having to pay for this insurance. They hire and serve only members of their denomination and they provide them with religious services.
are you going to be as consistent when you talk about Planned Parenthood?
This not the way the system has ever worked. Generally governments stay out of religion as the establishment clause requires. The Obama administration has stepped over the line.
How?
If I had to guess which institution was more apt to trample on the Constitution, the Catholic Church or the President of the United States: because of it’s long and immoral history of trampling on rights, the Church would be my pick.
Wonder which side of the establishment clause you come down on?
“The Obama administration” has declared war on religion and freedom of conscience. This callous requirement by the Obama administration is a clear violation of our nation’s commitment to liberty of conscience and a flagrant violation of our constitutional protection to freedom of religion.
”This is exactly how the issue should be drawn. The president can win the argument as long as it is a theological debate over the morality of condoms, IUDs and other devices that prevent pregnancies (and what our unenlightened grandparents called “social diseases”).
But Mr. Obama and his feminist allies can’t win the argument when the issue is drawn, correctly, as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of religious conscience.Condoms today, abortion tomorrow, and who knows what on the day after that. Only last month a committee of the legislature of the state of Washington approved something innocently called the “Reproductive Parity Act” requiring private health-insurance plans to cover abortion through all stages of pregnancy. If a health-insurance plan covers a full-term live birth, it has to cover late-term abortions.Ideology like that can only be imposed by law.
This is what terrifies not only bishops and evangelical preachers, who recognize a slippery slope even when most people can’t, but terrifies the Americans whom President Obama scorns as those who “cling to God and guns.” Mr. Obama takes comfort only in the applause of liberal churchmen who endorsed his condoms-for-everybody scheme—liberal Jews, Unitarians, stray Muslims, something called the “Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board,” and the usual preachers to empty pews.
The Obama White House may not be a coven of radicals out to impose their secular vision of what America could be, if only they could silence the religious conscience. But the president and his men are eager to do the work of such radicals. Only this week, an interviewer asked President Obama why he hadn’t been the “transformative” president he promised to be four years ago. “I deserve a second term,” he said. “We’re not done.”
Wesley Pruden (Editor emeritus of The Washington Times.)
The Constitution has been bludgeoned by Obama’s Alinsky-style form of governing. Obama has already stated, more than once, his dislike and contempt for the U.S. Constitution. He routinely violates the tenets of the Constitution……with a certain measure of devious delight. We shall see if this consecrated document still holds any power at all when Obamacare is argued before the SCOTUS in March.
This is a labor issue, period
Never a solution with Right crew just isims and mental mush…. why is that?
It’s because the mental mush you refer to is actual Constitutional law and logic. Things that liberals don’t/won’t understand.
What I understand is conservative crockery has brought us the mess we have. In your vast understanding of the ways of the world exactly what accomplishments in the past ten years have conservatives brought to the table that improve anyone’s lot in life other than their own?
Logic, now there’s a conservative concept. Are you referring to the logic where words have the opposite meaning, words like conservative, now actually mean consumption or to consume?
Uh, out-of-control spending, regardless of party is not a conservative hallmark. I think you’re getting conservatism confused with something called liberalism.
As I understand “conservative,” the meaning refers to wanting to remain true to the basic tenets on which this country was founded, meaning individual liberty; small, limited government. Nothing’s changed there.
Congress didn’t make any law and there isn’t any slippery slope except that of letting the Catholic church start calling more political shots in the US. Churches setting up organizations that are staffed by and minister to their own religious believers do not have to cover contraceptives. Churches that take public funding, serve and staff their institutions with people from the general public and provide a non religious service aren’t really religious institutions and need to provide comprehensive insurance. They don’t pick and choose their employees or the people they serve. Why should they get to pick and choose what they cover.
Remember the public concern that Kennedy, because he was Catholic, would be more overly influenced by Church and the Pope?
We currently have Republican candidates (two of whom are Catholic and one Mormon deeply entrenched in their faiths and one who does not disclose his denomination ) who wish to have Roe vs Wade overturned even in the case of incest, rape or the life of the woman, some who believe that the use of contraceptives is immoral, they are a form of abortion and believe that states should have the power to ban their use ….. of course none of these things have anything to do with limiting preventive healthcare practices for women, it is all about undermining Freedom of Religion.
Whoa…all of a sudden, we’re going to get technical with the actual language of the Constitution after thousands of instances of establishment causes cases where starting up a meeting with a prayer or a nativity scene or including a reference to Jesus in a commencement speech was a violation of the 1st amendment? Are you really that hypocritical?
And no…congress didn’t make any law. The President made the law…oops…that’s not his Constitutionally mandated job, is it? Quick civics lesson. The President is the executive branch…the Congress is the legislative branch.
They don’t pick and choose their employees? Really? They hire everyone that fills out an application?
Fun with liberals – almost as fun as whac-a-mole.
You shoulda given your little speech here to that pseudo-cowboy from Texas. How many executive orders did Bush sign? What was it, … more than all the other Presidents in total?
Yeah – not a big fan of the executive order, regardless of who signs it.
I see that you conveniently ignored the meat of the post. Kinda hard to ride both sides of the first amendment, isn’t it?
Tell me how that (All Encompasing) Freedom of Religion Works out for those who think that they can have human sacrifices!
The intent of that clause is to keep the government from picking and choseing religions and or a to make a nuetral stance on beliefs.
It was not intended as a get out of jail card for practices!
That would violate laws against murder – which laws inherently have their origin in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Keep the softballs coming!
you don’t want to get pregnant, you know what you need to “not” do…simple as that…that birth control…your own birth control…be accountable for your actions…
Good luck with that.
The Church fought against universal health care because it would cover contraceptives.
And they didn’t even stand up to get abortion included under universal healthcare.They caved.
Why should employers decide what should be covered under insurance, not all employees may be of their religion or have the same needs? That should be the employee’s decision on what needs or how many children they have, not the employers or religions.
If you are employed by a religious organization or affiliation, you leave your personal/religious beliefs at the door and you follow their doctrine or you can be fired … if you are employed by a local, state or the federal government you can not be compelled to perform any duty outside your personal/religious beliefs … if within your job description there are duties that go against your religious beliefs you can file a suit charging discrimination on the basis of Freedom of Religion.
The employer pays the bulk of healthcare costs and those costs are passed on to his/her customers.Employers have the choice to prohibit smoking for example even though that is a legal activity.
Seems like a reasonable and fair compromise.
Our brave President has been shown wisdom by Jesus himself! I fully support Barack Obama and think he is the greatest leader America has ever known. I can’t wait to attend his second Inauguration!
He sets up an outlandish situation then with his goodness, intelligence and majesty throws the peons some crumbs.. OMG
Much more than crumbs.
How do you know that Jesus himself revealed “wisdom” to your brave president? Do you suppose Jesus whispered in Barack’s ear and said, “Barack, when American women want to kill their unborn fetuses, they shouldn’t have to pay for the killing procedure. I want them to not have to worry about the cost involved in ending the life of their unborn. Barack, you and Kathleen Sebelius must lead that charge ! Now, get moving and “bless you, my son.”
As far as Obama being the “greatest President” America has ever known……have you ever opened a U.S. History book ?
Obama, has again masterfully drawn out his opposition and gracefully dispatched with them by providing a reasonable solution that isn’t intended to divide people.
The Republicans are at least holding true to form with the division and hate and no solution that they are so well known for.
If Obama will lie to Cardinal Dolan’s face & then think nothing of doing as he pleases, how many lies does he tell to the rest of us? Totally untrustworthy man.
Lie????
This guy is without a doubt one of the most dangerous
presidents we have ever had. He is so out to left field
he would make Ted Kennedy seem like a conservative.
Only the socialist and marxist thinkers seem to love
the guy. He isn’t satisfied with being a closet marxist,
he is definitley out in the open about it. His wife was correct
when she said he was going to change our traditions AND
history. And the sheep will follow.
The Right is going to have search for a long time till you find someone as dangerous, disastrous and disingenuous as history has proven Bush to be. I know your crew wants that to go away, but not in our life time.
Obama’s corruption makes Nixon look like a girl scout … No I take that back – more like a brownie !
who knew!
The issue is in my mind is not contraception , the issue is and always been about executive power its use and the freedom of religion.
Do you find it disturbing that Obama can “order” insurance companies to cover services simply by demanding the rule change?
I think its disturbing how insurance companies empty our pockets at an exponential rate.
We let them do it. We all want to buy a little financial security and we are willing to pay through the nose for it and give up autonomy in our health decisions for it. We get the system we ask for…
Until today, Obama was not ordering anything. The law addressing the ‘coverage for birth control’ issue was already in effect 11 years ago under equal Civil Rights protection clauses and previously decided case law.
The recent Sebelius mandate has to do with associated co-pays for already required health coverages for women AND men.
Obama is responding too fast on this. He’d have done better to slow down and taken the year they had initially set aside for review.
If he had let it slow down for a year, it would’ve been hanging over his head this November. He rushed it strictly for political reasons (the reason being to save his behind, of course). And that is the only real reason for the rush.
A necessity to thwart the purely political onslught by the zealous rabid right.
I won’t be as zealous and rabid as you, that’s for sure!
I’ll just say it’s just one part of the political game and perpetrated by both sides since time immemorial. He did it for less than altruistic reasons. Nothing new…
Sad, too that Biden and McCaskill failed him.Choice now,choice tomorrow,choice forever!
Freedom of Religion does not Transcend from the Religion to Government as well as the other way around.
What right does the Catholic Church have in denying its employees of other Faiths equal protection under the law?
What right does “the law” have to force people to violate their consciences in matters of religion? There are moral laws, and there are immoral laws, like this one, and the “legality” of abortion.
Ask the Inquisitors.They were pretty good at it.
Tell that to the rabid right and the Church.
The WH should have taken the ‘year to work out the details’ of the mandate.
It makes little sense to do this. Religious institutions are already required to abide by existing case law.
The mandate would not have limited what churches can teach, no more than it could limit what members of a congregation choose to believe – or, perhaps more aptly put, not to believe.
What it does is to effectively allow churches to discriminate against the bases of equal protections, freedom of (and from) religion, and privacy. But then the 14th Amendment is the real target, as is Roe v Wade.
Women don’t need ‘permission’ any more than we need a papal dispensation to practice birth control. We’re going to do it, regardless of a church’s position.
I vote for getting insurance companies out of health care. They are not in the ‘Claims’ business. They are in the ‘Premium’ business and add nothing to the quality of health care. They employ lots of people who spend their days collecting information and/or denying coverage to their customers, whom they have never met with conditions they don’t understand, and charging an arm and a leg for the privilege.
Enough already.
Unless your up against Mitt Romney or maybe Ron Paul, you will be out of here at the end of the year
No compromise will ever be enough ….. not until the use of artificial contraceptives and condoms is 100% banned because all citizens must comply with religious doctrine or they are attacking the Freedom of Religion.
That is just bonkers, mate.
Under equal snark protections, might I offer a challenge over the violation of women’s right to practice ‘faith in themselves’ – to decide what’s best for their own health and their family’s future?!
How about we leave it to a woman and her health care professional.
Precisely my point, while it’s pretty clear you didn’t get my ‘snark’.
Oh well.
Yup and they’re the same ones who screech about the coming of Sharia Law.
You keep spewing that nonsense if it makes you feel good. I don’t believe in God I yet I do believe that any non-profit that prefers not to be involved in abortion is just fine. There have been MANY exemptions given for lesser reasons. Mostly political.
Like it or not religious people are responsible for a lot of good in our country dating back to it’s inception. It appears that every religion other then Christianity gets a pass.
One last point. President Obama believes in God as did EVERY OTHER President through the history of our country.
Really??? You see all contraceptives being outlawed??? REALLY??? That’s the reality, the only argument your capable of making? People that spout UNREALISTIC accusations tend to know little of the REAL issue. OUR ECONOMY. I know it’s a little complex but unless we know what’s going on we make foolish statements to hide our ignorance.
I said nothing about abortion (but we know how all the current Republican candidates stand on that topic). The issue here was birth control. You don’t think a ban on contraceptives could happen? Rick Santorum believes states should have that power and he would support them. The point is thrillme, there are factions of our society that believe using birth control is immoral and they seem to have a lot of influence on our politicians and policy ……
No i don’t think it could or ever will happen. Your so blinded by your hatred of a SMALL portion of a party that has those issues HIGH on the list that you can’t grasp that most think very similarly to you. HATRED , it’s not gonna fix anything. pointing out twelve people that HATE democrats on a video does not mean they represent the entire party. There are those that portend to be of the left I would hope you would dissociate yourself from.. If not, maybe i’m talking to the wrong person.
I have no idea what is it you are talking about ….. what hatred? My issue is the trend toward limiting preventive reproductive and health practices that directly affect women. these issues should be between a woman and her healthcare provider without the influence of the religious beliefs of others deciding what practices they are allowed or not allowed to receive.
“Every religion other than Christianity gets a pass”??
What about the gallons of ink spilled regarding Romney’s faith-it being a cult,etc?There are thousands more examples.
The point of an exemption is simply to enable an employer to avoid acting contrary to his or her religious beliefs, not to retain control of employees’ health plans, limit employees’ choices to those religiously approved by the employer, and avoid paying any money to anybody that might someday be used by somebody to provide services to employees not to the employers’ liking.
And I can see many false claims for exemptions.
If the churches want to be involved in politics, which they are, they should lose their tax exempt status.
Right on!
Or if they want to be in business. What’s that about money-changers in the temple, again?
Then Planned Parenthood and all other leftist non-profits should lose their exempt status as well. Why is it that leftists are given a pass as regards to tax status, but any Christian religion is not?
That will never happen.And the weekly shakedown continues.Imagine what all that prime real estate would be worth.What about all the art in the Vatican?
What about it? The Vatican is a sovereign nation unto itself.
If they don’t play the game, why should the Catholic Priests make the rules?
Catholic priests merely relay the rules given to humanity by Jesus Christ and his apostles, and the Holy Spirit. If you want to defy the Catholic Church, you are defying Christ himself. I know that this may be tough to swallow if you are not a Catholic, but Catholic teaching is for our own (eternal) good. Jesus intended that everyone who lived after him would become a Catholic, and be led to salvation by the church which he founded. The hijacking of the Catholic faith by Martin Luther in the 16th century has led to much confusion and outright denial of God by a large number of people. Luther taught that anyone could read the Bible and had the right to interpret it as he or she pleased. With the help of greedy government leaders who coveted and confiscated Catholic property, Luther’s teaching was able to stick. The logical result of his teaching has certainly come to bear. Each succeeding generation from the 16th century til today has grown further away from God. It only makes sense that a society which believes in anything will eventually lead to a society which believes in nothing.
Jesus intended that people all over the world would pray to idols and strands of beads?
You don’t know what Catholicism is. We worship God alone; we do not pray to idols. A Rosary is a meditation on the life of Jesus Christ. Until you investigate and learn the truth about Catholicism, please don’t condemn it.
“The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshiping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God.”
Lets not forget indulgences and transubstantiation. Two of my favorites.
Were you there when they cannibalized my Lord?
It wasn’t until I left the catholic church that I finally discovered who Jesus Christ really was and what it actually meant to be born again. You can have your rituals, just give me Jesus!
I feel sorry for you, cp444. You can’t get any closer to Jesus Christ while you’re on earth than by receiving him in the Eucharist. As an old visiting priest at our parish once said in a homily, “You have sold the treasure and purchased for yourself poverty.”
Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior to all who accept that he is the Son of God, and to all who obey him. Jesus did not want us to be orphans after he left earth, so he founded the Catholic Church as the guide to our salvation, and the earthly conduit through which all of his graces of salvation flow. Anyone who is saved who is non-Catholic, is saved by the graces of Christ which flow through his Catholic Church. There is no salvation without the graces of Jesus Christ and his Church.
As for you, RealMainer, have you ever read where Jesus said in the Bible, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you do not have life in you?” The original Greek word for “eat” as Jesus used it means to “gnaw” or “chew.” If Christ can do millions of miracles, as he did while he was on earth, and has continued to do for the past 2000 years through the hands of faithful Catholics, why is it so hard to believe that he can turn bread and wine into his body and blood? Do a search on the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, and see if that changes your mind about the Eucharist.
And I assume that both of you are “Bible only” Christians. Has it ever occurred to you where the Bible comes from? Catholics wrote the New Testament books, and Catholic bishops in the late 4th and early 5th centuries decided which Jewish and Christian writings belonged in the Bible. The Bible was assembled and canonized by Catholics. If you believe that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, then you automatically accept the authority of the Catholic Church, for it is the Catholic Church that declared the Bible to be so. If not for the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible as we know it. The teaching authority of the Church is the only lawful guide to the interpretation of the Bible. All other interpretations are false gospels.
Please don’t feel sorry for me, really. I do know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I do believe the Bible cover to cover. You have contradicted not only yourself in your post but you are also espousing to something other than catholic doctrine. There is indeed salvation apart from the catholic church. I have met very few catholics who even understand the work of the cross never mind anything written in the Bible. There is no pope ever mentioned in scripture. The lineage of popes does not date anywhere near to the time of Christ. The catholic church did NOT write the Bible. There is no redemption in Mary. Jesus alone is my redeemer. No one can forgive my sins other than Jesus Christ. I am a sinner saved by grace and not by works. There is no purgatory that I can be prayed or bought out of. When I die I will be instantly in His presence. It is useless praying to saints or statues. Jesus does not need their help. My Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. You can have your rituals. Just give me Jesus!
It’s easy to see why you left the Catholic Church, because you never knew what it was in the first place. I have never espoused something which is not Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches unequivocally that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. That does not mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved. It means that if they are saved, the graces which save them first come from Jesus and then flow through his earthly guide to salvation, the Catholic Church. There can be no salvation any other way, since that is what was taught by Jesus and the apostles.
I’m very surprised that you say that there is no pope mentioned in Scripture. St. Peter, the first pope, is mentioned dozens of times. And the lineage of popes is certainly traceable to the time of Christ. Irenaeus wrote down a list of the 12 popes from Peter up until the time of his writing in the late 2nd century. That was more than 200 years before the Bible was canonized, and more than 1300 years before Martin Luther renounced the rightful teaching authority of the Catholic Church, and declared the Bible to be the sole authority in matters of faith.
Who wrote the Bible, by the way, if Catholics didn’t?
You’re right, Mary is not our Redeemer. Jesus only fulfills that role. Mary does pray for our salvation, though. And you are right in that only Jesus forgives our sins. He’s the one who died for us. No other saint has done that for us. But any saint can pray for us. I ask saints to pray for me, just as you would ask one of your family members or friends to pray for you. The saints are alive, and living in spiritual perfection in the presence of God. They are keenly aware of our needs for our well-being and salvation (look what Jesus says about the angels, regarding repentant sinners, in Luke 15). Because the saints are saved and have been made perfect by God’s grace, their prayer is always heard. I want them on my side when it comes to having them pray for me.
You are also right in saying that salvation is by grace, and not works. That has always been what the Catholic Church has taught since the time of the apostles. Good works are a result of grace, and not vice-versa. If we perform good works while we are not in a state of grace, they mean nothing. Good works have merit in the eyes of God only when we do them while in a state of grace. For it is not us who perform the works, but it is God working through us, as St. Paul writes about so many times in the Bible.
As far as Purgatory goes, it has been believed in since the time of the apostles, and even earlier by the Jews before Christ. There is a very specific reference to it in the 2nd Book of Macabees (Chapter 12), which you don’t have in your Bible, because Macabees is one of the 7 books that Martin Luther removed from the Bible. All Protestants have followed Luther’s way, and are missing out on a fair amount of original Scripture. Purgatory is alluded to in the New Testament in 1st Cor. 3:10-15. The Catholic Church has always taught that Purgatory is a place where souls which did not fulfill punishment for their sins while on earth would be purified by fire before being allowed into heaven, and that’s exactly what Corinthians refers to.
So you can have just Jesus if you want. I’ll take him and the rituals he left us through his Holy Church. I get to have the Bible, too, which you have only in incomplete form. And I get a religion which has direct authority from Jesus to lead me the way to salvation, whereas you have one of 40,000 competing “gospels” which all claim to be true, yet were founded by mere men. And I have miracles for the proof of the authority of my religion. Jesus and many Catholics over the past 2000 years have performed millions of miracles. No founder of any other religion, be it Christian or non-Christian, has ever performed a miracle. I personally had an injury healed by a miracle which was performed by a Catholic, in the name of Jesus Christ.
So I hope that you have been educated by this post. I hope you realize that what you have been taught about the Catholic faith is not even close to being true. I was once challenged by a Protestant about the veracity of my faith. It shook me up, even though I had been a life-long Catholic. I studied the matter very carefully from both perspectives. It was a great grace from God, because it strengthened me tremendously in the Catholic faith. Now I am 110% certain that Catholicism is the surest guide to salvation. And I am 110% certain that all the ills of Western society, including abortion, contraception, gay sex and “marriage,” divorce, communism, atheism, and the travesty of 40,000 different Protestant denominations can be traced directly to the revolt against Catholicism by Martin Luther and his cronies. Once you deny the Christ-given teaching authority of the Catholic Church, you start down a slippery slope that can have no bottom short of hell. Each succeeding generation from Luther on down has grown further and further away from Jesus Christ. We can only hope that when Jesus returns, he will still find any faith left on the earth.
I suppose my 12 year study of catholic doctrine doesn’t count. I just typed out about 500 words refuting most of what you posted only to delete it in favor of saying I am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner saved by grace. There is salvation in no other name than Jesus Christ. I believe that right down to my inner core. I wouldn’t walk across the street to meet the pope if given the opportunity. I believe in sola scriptura. I do believe there are born again catholics saved in spite of all the false doctrines of the catholic church. Perhaps you’re on of them. I hope so. God bless.
I can’t give a long reply, but I will tell a little story. Perhaps you heard of John Cardinal Newman. He was a British Episcopalian bishop of the 19th century, and was very anti-Catholic. To prove that Catholicism was a false religion, he began a study of Christian history which he began in his own century, and traced backwards, century-by-century, to prove just when Catholic belief was “invented” (he of course believed that it was started a long time after Jesus was on earth). Before he traced all the way back to the 1st century, he knew he had to become a Catholic. He later said that, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
As you well know, Jesus said in the Bible that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church. That logically means that the church which Jesus founded upon Peter still has to exist today, and that its teachings cannot contain error. No non-Catholic Christian religion can trace its roots back to Caesarea Philippi. If you believe in sola scriptura, then you believe in a doctrine that didn’t even exist until 1500 years after the Resurrection. If you believe in the Bible at all, then you believe in a Holy Book which was given to us by the Catholic Church, and which was declared to be the Word of God by the Catholic Church. You may reject Catholicism, but you accept the Catholic Book, and you don’t make logical use of the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 16. I hope someday that you will ponder this.
Thanks for the blessings, and may God bless you, too.
I too can give countless stories of faithful Christians coming to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit…. apart from the catholic church. My own conversion was a miracle as are all. Trust me when I tell you I can refute any thing you can throw at me with scripture. Christianity itself started with a few, grew to thousands in the book of Acts. The Apostle Paul himself who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament had one of the most dramatic conversions of all. Never any mention of a priest, pope or catholic church involved. I certainly don’t mean to belittle your faith. I have been at this a long time, going back to when the mass was in latin. I am short on time right at the moment but would love to continue our discussion later.
It’s hard for me to keep going, because I am disabled by chronic illness. But just remember that the Catholic Church existed with a pope and priests (St. Paul and all the apostles were priests; Acts 20 was the earliest written brief description of a Mass) for 400 years before the Bible was even canonized. If you are Bible only, then Christians were without any guidance for 400 years. But they actually did have guidance, and that was from the Catholic Church, which gave us the Bible as we now know it 400 years after Christ.
Actually they gathered together in chapter 2 of acts not 20. There is also references in chapter 1. Perhaps that is what you meant? You will note they were gathering together in peoples homes breaking bread together ( communion). No reference whatsoever of a mass. You should also make note that it was the Lord that was adding to them daily. Also note it was the apostles teaching, not priests. The levitical priesthood was done away with with the new covenant. We have touched on so many area’s its hard to know where to start. Martin Luther was given an ultimatum to repudiate his unwavering faith in scripture. I love his reply ” unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the word of God.” To that I reply amen. You mentioned in an earlier post how you had a conversation with someone that shook your faith to its core. I understand how you felt as I went through a similar encounter. The difference is God gave me the strength and courage to leave and supplied what I needed. The catholic church has a cult like hold on its followers. Its a frightening thing to walk away from something that is so deeply ingrained. I once heard it said that leaving the catholic church is almost as difficult as changing the color of ones skin. I have had so many conversations with catholic’s and you can sense their doubts and unbelief in their own teachings. They seem to fear what family and friends will say more than wanting to know the truth. I can certainly understand their apprehension. Its so sad that so many refuse to call it what it is. I believe in the sovereignty of God. Its no accident you and I are having this conversation now. Sorry to hear about your illness. Hope its not life threatening.
Wise move. Should quell the zealots (and the sermons …).
The Obama Politburo doesn’t make blunders of this nature…..(alienating their “Catholic” base) Now it appears as though the Politburo caved into “religious freedom” pressure….when the real tactic is a clever ruse to introduce the public to birth control methods, after morning pills and abortions now being covered in new insurance policies……(which was included in Obamacare from the very start.)
The Obama administration has approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it will force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.
Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion advocate, said in a statement that new health plans will be required to include coverage with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012
It is Obama’s nature (and Sebelius) to lie and deceive. “You are of your father, Lucifer, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was an imposter from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” John 8:44
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness” Eph. 6:8
Now where is that Bart Stupak person ?
Bart was and is as much a deceiver as Obama. Stupak pulled the stunt he did for political purposes. It was a sham all along.
November 6, 2012…….turning the Ship of State around
Just think, if we had a Public Option this would never have been an issue.
Shameful.Obama should’ve NEVER given a single group an extension.Then he caves instead of standing up to the pedophiles.Very disappointed.
Obama backed down because he looked out at the health care/charitable organizations landscape and what he saw was 1 out of 6 hospitals being run by the Catholic Church; he saw millions of children, families, handicapped, mentally ill–all being offered services from a Catholic Charity. He saw prestigious universities and colleges and K-12 schools and pre-schools and daycares being run by the Catholic Church. When the Bishops offered him a glimpse of this nation minus the input of the Catholic Church, he blinked hard.
America leans very hard on the charity offered by the Catholics in this nation–and they have since the founding of this nation. While all the critics have been shouting “pedophile priest!” millions of Catholics and billions of dollars have been serving the sick, the needy, the downtrodden, the poor.
This is not a compromise–it is still a mandate, and it infringes upon the rights of the person who does not want to be paying for someone else’s “let the good times roll.” It has nothing to do with women’s health; it is simply another control issue for this administration!
Partner health care beni’s for all is needed as well, for all catholic orgs
http://lnk.co/IIFDQ