President Obama's Birth Control Gamble

[Brother Adam]

I agree, it is [arguably] unconstitutional.

[quote]
The HHS has issued a rule forcing nearly all private health plans to include coverage for all FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, as well as surgical sterilization. These are listed among "preventive services for women" that all health plans will have to cover without co-pays or other cost-sharing -- regardless of whether the insurer, the employer or other plan sponsor, [i]or even the woman herself[/i] objects to such coverage.

The exemption provided for "religious employers" is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities, and service organizations that help millions every year. Ironically, not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.

During the public comment period last fall, the bishops' grassroots campaign alone generated over 57,000 comments to HHS opposing their mandate.

Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.
[/quote]

[quote]"The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease." - Archbishop Timothy Dolan[/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328239138' post='2379980']
If you really do understand the mandate and where it falls relative to Presidential power yet still gave the examples that you did then you were simply being dishonest for the sake of rhetorical flair. The President's move is arguably (conceivably) unconstitutional, depending on the mood of the Court, there is case law for either option, but to compare it to the President dictating that private citizens practice Hinduism is to evidence a lack of understanding of Executive power.
[/quote]

Brother Adam's example is fair. The order requires that Catholic institutions provide the care mandated by the government, which is contrary to Catholic teaching. Thus, the president is forcing Catholic employers to violate their conscience - it is similar to forcing a certain belief.

Executive power is not greater than constitutional limits and freedoms.

[Nihil Obstat]

The amount of arrogance is enough to choke a hippo, yet unfortunately not surprising.

[4588686]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1328241195' post='2380006']
Brother Adam's example is fair. The order requires that Catholic institutions provide the care mandated by the government, which is contrary to Catholic teaching. Thus, the president is forcing Catholic employers to violate their conscience - it is similar to forcing a certain belief.

Executive power is not greater than constitutional limits and freedoms.
[/quote]

There is no Constitutional right specifically for religious institutions to operate a hospital or employ people with unique exceptions. After reading Douthat's article (I linked it on another thread) I think I lean towards this being unwise policy but to compare this to the President mandating that every citizen convert to Hinduism, something very obviously unconstitutional, is not just a silly exaggeration, it would also be a very different sort of exertion of power than the one utilized here, an exertion of power that is perfectly within any President's prerogative to utilize in the shaping of policy, even if this particular exercise of that class of power is unconstitutional.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Hasan

[rkwright]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328241686' post='2380016']
to compare this to the President mandating that every citizen convert to Hinduism, something very obviously unconstitutional, is not just a silly exaggeration, it would also be a very different sort of exertion of power than the one utilized here, an exertion of power that is perfectly within any President's prerogative to utilize in the shaping of policy, even if this particular exercise of that class of power is unconstitutional.
[/quote]
This seems contradictory. Obama's actions are an exertion of power that are within the President's prerogative yet also unconstitutional? If its unconstitutional then its not within the President's prerogative - unless you're using that term so widely to mean anything the President thinks - which almost renders it useless in any conversation about constitutional rights.

[FaithAndReason21]

It would be more akin to the President mandating that every restaurant in America, including Hindu owned Indian restaurants, serve hamburger meat as per some health and nutrition regulation coming from HHS, or forcing Muslims to serve pork, because the "other white meat" is just oh so nutritious. How long would a law such as that stand, do you think?

[arfink]

I don't think the pork argument is a very good one for the simple reason that you're more likely to be vegan if you're a crazy liberal, rather than advocating[i] *shudder* [/i]unhealthy and distasteful [i]meat[/i].

[FaithAndReason21]

My opinion is that we wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't for the fact that the hierarchy of the Church failed to properly catechetize the laity for the past fifty or more years, got in bed with socialists due to some well-intentioned but poorly thought out attempt to advocate the Church's teachings on social justice, and, yes, lost an immense amount of moral authority in the eyes of the world as a result of the sex scandals. Non-Catholics laugh us to scorn when Catholics speak up regarding morality these days, and rightly so, the Church is reaping what it sowed. Christ never took kindly to hypocrites. That of course doesn't mean we should stand idly by, but that's really the reality of the situation.

[4588686]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1328243062' post='2380030']
This seems contradictory. Obama's actions are an exertion of power that are within the President's prerogative yet also unconstitutional? If its unconstitutional then its not within the President's prerogative - unless you're using that term so widely to mean anything the President thinks - which almost renders it useless in any conversation about constitutional rights.
[/quote]

You're right. That was a bad argument.

[FaithAndReason21]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1328243694' post='2380036']
I don't think the pork argument is a very good one for the simple reason that you're more likely to be vegan if you're a crazy liberal, rather than advocating[i] *shudder* [/i]unhealthy and distasteful [i]meat[/i].
[/quote]

Touche! haha

[FaithAndReason21]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1328243694' post='2380036']
I don't think the pork argument is a very good one for the simple reason that you're more likely to be vegan if you're a crazy liberal, rather than advocating[i] *shudder* [/i]unhealthy and distasteful [i]meat[/i].
[/quote]

Hey arfink maybe this should be a PM, but did you go to SJVCS in Miami?

[FaithAndReason21]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1328243694' post='2380036']
I don't think the pork argument is a very good one for the simple reason that you're more likely to be vegan if you're a crazy liberal, rather than advocating[i] *shudder* [/i]unhealthy and distasteful [i]meat[/i].
[/quote]

Hmmm... my page is wigging out like crazy here so if this posts twice, my apologies.

Arfink, did you go to the SJVCS in Miami?

[arfink]

I went to SJVCS in Minnesota.

[FaithAndReason21]

Oh! I thought maybe I knew you! I went to Miami.

[kujo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1328234271' post='2379925']
Right. And the democratically elected executive made a policy decision that is within his rights to make. There's nothing undemocratic of unconstitutional about it. Nor will there be if the electorate decides to replace him with an executive of alternative convictions.
[/quote]

The original intent of the "wall" separating "Church" from "State" was to prevent the "State" from encroaching upon the rights of the "Church." Nowadays that separation seems to be focused more towards stemming the influence of the Church into the affairs of the State, but its origins lie in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. A quick summation of the event from Wikipedia:

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3][quote]The Danbury Baptist Association of [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury,_Connecticut"]Danbury, Connecticut[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson"]Thomas Jefferson[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3], expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions — That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works [i]ill to his neighbor...[/i]"[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state#cite_note-3"][4][/url][/sup][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
As a religious minority in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut"]Connecticut[/url], the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [i]prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/i],' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." (emphasis mine)[/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]
While this letter is certainly not part of the Constitution, the sentiments expressed stem from a frequent theme in Jefferson's writings-- the government is not to interfere with religion. This HHS mandate is absolutely the sort of infringement that Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Fathers, would loathe. You know that I'm not the sort to give into the "rhetorical flair" you accused someone of earlier in this thread. But this stuff from the HHS is unconstitutional, and will be stricken down in the courts. [/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' timestamp='1328236299' post='2379948']
Obama is a antichrist and he needs the FEAR of God put in him.
[/quote]

Gee...that sounds like a threat to me. Sorta like how your mom or dad would say "I'll give you something to cry about," meaning that they were going to spank you or something.

Thanks for the laugh, though.