Thursday, October 11, 2012



Pennsylvania Pole said...

Ryan make it abundantly clear last night during the debate that he will stand by his man Romney vis-a-vis his being in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother. It's obvious that Ryan cares more about getting elected than he does about being totally faithful to Catholic doctrine. Too much phoney baloney.


Maybe you guys should highlight what the USCCB said in response to Joe Biden's remarks at the debate. Seems the VP was not telling the truth but what else is new with him.


Maybe you should post what the USCCB said about Joe Biden's lies about the HHS mandate. He really needs to go to confession.

Anonymous said...

Archbishop Lori made it very clear: He said "The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that's the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn't be voting for such a person." So, people who claim to be Catholic cannot vote in good conscience and according to the teaching of this bishop vote for a candidate who supports abortion in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. To vote for Romney-Ryan, both of who support abortion under circumstances as if it is not intrinsically evil, is to cooperate with evil or be coopted by it. Thus, such people are putting their souls at risk.

Kurt said...

Biden is correct and the bureucrat making the statement is incorrect.

Contraception need not be part of these plans. Outside of these plans and without any involvement of the employer, insurance companies will offer those workers who seek it contraceptive coverage. Maybe these employers still object to this compromise, but they need to admit to this point.

BTW, I receive all sorts of offers, coupons, etc directly from the insurance company that I have through my workplace health insurance. I don’t consider any of these offers as coming from my employer.

Doug Indeap said...

Actually, it is the bishops that have it wrong. Their claims that the health law violates religious liberty are based on a "big lie"--a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.

Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.

The second choice does not amount to "violating" the law and paying a "fine," as some suppose. As the law "does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance"
(, there is no such "mandate" to "violate." Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.

Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a "large employer" (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option--for reasons entirely unrelated to religion.

In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is "morally sound." While also considering this option "unfortunate" in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers' "moral connection" to that coverage would be "remote."

Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.

To Old To Run said...

Doug may have taken NCBC out of context. NCBC Statement on the HHS Mandates...(the NCBC) consistently has voiced its strong opposition to the mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services...President Obama proposed what he called a “compromise”....The NCBC has been involved in providing analyses of the “compromise” to its various constituents and collaborating with others involved with trying to influence public became obvious that there was no true compromise at all but rather some slight modifications to procedure that left the substance of the mandate entirely intact...the day the “compromise” was announced, the mandate was entered into the federal register with no changes...the “Mandate” must continue to be opposed: The unacceptable definition of what constitutes a religion for protection under the constitution. HHS has determined that for an organization to qualify for a “religious” exemption it must hire and serve primarily its own co-religionists and try to convert those who do not share the same faith....It is a matter of religious belief that Catholics are commanded to serve all in need not just its own co-religionists... This is one area where the mandate violates the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution...The unacceptable definition of what constitutes a disease or pathology, in this case, fertility and pregnancy. Contraceptives and surgically mutilating acts such as tubal ligations are included in the Mandate as means of preventing disease rather than being seen for what they are, drugs and surgical interventions that actually destroy or render dysfunctional an otherwise healthy system of the body. Abortifacient drugs and devices are also offered as preventions for disease as though preventing an embryo from implanting in the nurturing womb of his or her mother were the prevention of a pathology..In an attempt to forge a compromise the Obama administration first of all created a new category of citizens – those who did not enjoy the HHS religious exemption because they were not really “religious”, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, but who still had religious objections... Of course everyone understands that insurance companies would be certain to recover their costs through the premiums charged to the (non-exempt, but now indulged) organization that has religious and moral scruples about providing these drugs and devices... As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others have insisted, this mandate is a violation of the First Amendment and must be rescinded... Those who have embraced the mandate have ignored the constitutional questions it raises in favor of secondary issues such as women’s access to contraception under the euphemistic and misguided term “women’s health”, or the perceived good of universal health care. The moral issues related to the latter two are significant and should be addressed. This issue, however, must not be allowed to be diluted by arguments about the morality of sterilization, abortifacient drugs and devices, and contraception. Every American should feel challenged by this egregious violation of constitutional freedom.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Christian Medical Association, The Southern Baptist Convention, some Jewish groups, the Catholic Medical Association, a group of highly regarded Catholic scholars, individual religious leaders, and many others have all decried the president’s mandate and the so-called “compromise” which leaves the mandate in place as a violation of the Constitution of the United States and potentially of the consciences of the citizens of the United States. We are pleased to provide links to what we believe are some of the best commentaries on this wrong-headed policy of the Obama administration. Due to space limitations, I have edited the content - please go to

Katherine said...

Let's be clear. You can argue that church affiliated hospitals and universities should be excluded from the basic benefits package. But you can't truthfully argue that HHS has made up some new definition of a religious organization. It is the same definitation as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended segregation in hospitals and colleges including those that were church affiliated so long as they served the general public.

To Old To Run said...

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended;
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Quoted from
Clearly the intent was to protect religious freedom;
From section 104 (a)
"(6) Nothing in this or any other Act shall be construed as authorizing the Commission, its Advisory Committees, or any person under its supervision or control to inquire into or investigate any membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, any college or university fraternity or sorority, any private club or any religious organization
SEC. 702. This title shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or to an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution.
From section 702
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

Katherine said...

Section 702, of which you quote, is the same standard that is used in the HHS rule for the basic benefits package.

The Civil Rights Act ended the practice of hospitals and schools that served the general public from race segregation. My neighbor, who is a light skinned African American women, tells me of the story when she had her first child and they wheeled her one way and then another in the church affiliated hospital because they mistook her for white when she first entered.

Imagine, being in labor and these "good Christians" thought it more important that she be in the segreaged wing of the hospital!!!!