A Different Catholic's Take On Obamacare

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1327451926' post='2374703']
As I understand it, it has nothing to do with receiving federal funds. It is any provider regardless of public or private.

My general reaction is the same, however, is there some authority backing these thoughts up?[/quote]
Obama? The federal government?

Certainly not any Catholic authority.

[quote]Obviously there is a balance between informed conscience and humility to the Church. Perhaps that is what informed conscience means...[/quote]


It seems that the author of this nonsense takes the common "liberal Catholic" view that "informed conscience" means simply doing whatever you want, and that the Church is wrong to say anybody nay, and that the Bishops just need to shut up and get out of the way.

He attacks the Bishops for "coercion" for simply speaking out against this evil, but the Bishops are not putting a gun to anyone's head and making them do anything.

No one is forcing people to choose employers or insurance plans that do not cover contraception. They can choose another school or employer, or buy their own insurance plan.

However, the federal government, in this mandate, [i]is[/i] forcefully coercing Catholic schools and businesses to provide insurance plans which violate their deeply-held moral believes, or else face a hefty fine.

As is typical, the leftist hack who wrote this article has it back-asswards.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1327449196' post='2374685']
A couple of questions.
Do religious employers have to meet the Federal Mandate because they accept Federal Fund$, or is the the source of funds irreleveant to the requirement?
Is it possible for religious employers to continue in business (even if smaller or limited) if they gave up Federal funds to avoid the requirement?
Could it not be argued that religious employers who receive Federal Funds actually partially fund the contraceptive provision of health insurance with these Federal Funds. In effective, the Feds are saying that some of the $$ given to these organizations have to pay for the Federal mandates.

It would be a different matter if religious employers are forced to fund the contraceptive mandate solely with $$ they raise, charge, or is donated to them.[/quote]
This mandate would apply whether the religious employer receives any government funds or not.

As I mentioned earlier, Christendom College would be affected by this legislation (and is thus fighting it) despite the fact that it receives no government aid.


[quote]There is no such thing as Free Money, even if it comes from the Government. Just because the Government gives you money, you don't really have the expectation there are no strings attached. This is what citizens get when they think Government is there to help and they have altrustic motives only. Government is about control and rules. The bigger the Gov, the more control it has. You can't have your cake and eat it too.[/quote]
True, which is exactly the reason Christendom refuses all federal funds.

However, this mandate forces private schools and employers to comply whether they receive federal funds or not, which makes it all the more tyrannical.

And, all moral issues aside, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to force such a mandate.


I'm sure a lot of people don't care about this one because they disagree with the Church about contraceptives, and don't care about this particular issue.

However, if the government passed a law requiring, say, private Muslim institutions to serve pork, the civil liberties crowd would be all up in arms.