add Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Obama’s dictate to provide health care plans that cover contraceptive services for female employees free of charge violates the American principle of freedom of conscience any questions? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Maybe this is just me losing my mind, but I feel like we discussed this on PM once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm Conscientious Objector to Obomba's war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 [url="http://www.usatoday.com/video/news/1441166359001"]http://www.usatoday.com/video/news/1441166359001[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhetor4christ Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I saw this video clip this morning. My favorite part: "we're not into polls, we're into moral principles." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57373785/dolan-urges-obama-to-back-down-on-birth-control/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) [b] White House Bent On Birth Control Requirement For Religious Groups[/b] OBAMA: The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. [i]~ isn't this just a not so clever use of semantics in order to continue the infringment, by mr. obama ?[/i] Edited February 11, 2012 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 [quote name='add' timestamp='1328963672' post='2385349'] [b] White House Bent On Birth Control Requirement For Religious Groups[/b] OBAMA: The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. [i]~ [/i]might as well argue that the Catholic Church is denying all of it’s employees the right to a Corvette because it refuses to buy said vehicles for each and every salaried worker. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 [img]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3299/3495557274_77e3a2bcd1.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Normile Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The compromise was that the Church did not have to directly pay for the abortions etc., rather their healthcare providers would pay for it. I guess Obama feels that most Americans are so stupid they will not realize that when the church or religious org.s healthcare provider pays for these services for the women they hire, the payment is coming from the premiums the church or religious organization is paying to the healthcare provider.... He is probably right too, he did get voted into office without ever holding a job while being openly the most left leaning socialist pro-death candidate to ever run for the office, and was voted for by 52% of catholics who voted. ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) [size=3]The issue is not whether birth control and abortion are available. They are. The issue is whether the government should have the power to force your neighbor to pay for these things, and/or to require all insurance policies to cover them.[/size] [size=3]Also, neither of these things is particularly expensive.[/size] [size=3]The absurd premise of the discussion is this: If it isn't covered, it's not available. But don't people buy their own Nyquil, Tylenol, heat pads, Viagra, divorce counseling, cosmetic surgery, toe fungus medicine, toothpaste, Botox and cell phones?[/size] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWHpcKXt-qQ&feature=related"][size=3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWHpcKXt-qQ&feature=related [/size][/url] Edited February 12, 2012 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 well said, Mister [img]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d160/wisper3/dustsaid.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Normile Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The real issue should be , how is any death inducing drug or procedure even remotely be considered " health care " ? I know of many instances where the doctors tell a woman she should not have the baby as it will kill her, my aunt with no kidneys carried her child to birth, premature birth , while suffering from cancer which was a result of medicines for the kidneys and dialysis procedures, she was told she should never have this child for her health reasons. This child is now a grown catholic woman married in the church with four catholic children of her own. Their is a post in here somewhere (P.M. Phorum) with a similiar story of a woman who had her water break early in the pregnancy and was told the child would die anyway and she would suffer severe health issues, but she steadfastly relied on her faith and bore a healthy child. This Nazi-like society of death the liberals envision in their utopia includes these drugs and procedures, including end of life counseling for the elderly and euthanasia, which I have not seen addressed here, but, which is also included in Obama-care. Perhaps its just that the majority of those who frequent this forum are youth and have no thought of the quality of life of the elderly. I wish someone would explain how death should be a part of healthcare. ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, as signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Church is not a democracy, but a religious organization; it does not negate the core principles and teachings of the Church. This administration’s actions are nothing more than a brazen attempt to appeal to their far left base for the upcoming election. The Catholic Church has a longstanding proscription against contraception and an even stronger position against sterilization and abortificants. How is forcing the Catholic Church to pay for these things it abhors, that contravene its religious teachings, not "prohibiting the free exercise" of its religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Make no mistake. This HHS mandate is simply a strategic first step, and ultimately the goal is not about contraception, which was never really an issue. Contraceptives can be obtained cheaply and easily everywhere, and there have been no complaints filed by women against Catholic employers not covering their contraception. But this is the first step. If Obama and the radical feminist, pro-abort lobby he is beholden to can successfully mandate that all employers must provide insurance to pay for contraception (including pills that are in actuality abortifacients) regardless of the religious beliefs of employers, then they can next require that they cover abortion pills such as RU-486 (since, after all, the courts have declared abortion a "constitutional right"), then dictate that they cover flat-out surgical abortions. That's not a "slippery-slope" fallacy, but similar to the legal process that led up to Roe v. Wade. Team Obama knows exactly what it's up to on this one. Don't be fooled; he really is "all that bad." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The word birth control means to me " I'm a control freak " but that is nasty possibly better that it means this " i'm scared " or half nasty half politically correct " unless i have full control of my life i get scared." Me too peoples me too, thats why i have a loving God whom i ask to take control of my life when i get scared, which is often enough. Plus he does a whole variety of other good stuff too even when i'm not so scared. God bless ye all. Onward christian souls. Jesus is LORD. JC "the kingdom of heaven is made for little children such as these." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now