In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


The Church Rejects Obama’s Birth Control Deal

You wouldn’t know if from picking up the newspaper, but the Catholic bishops have given a thorough thumbs down to President Obama’s “compromise” solution on forcing Catholic institutions to provide free birth control to their employees.

It’s so shocking to the mainstream media that the conservative press they despise – outlets like Fox News, The Daily Caller, the Washington Examiner and so forth – has sprouted up in the past decade or two. Well, if they’re wondering, this is exactly why.

As I wrote yesterday, Obama’s new approach STILL REQUIRES CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS TO OFFER FREE BRITH CONTROL, it’s just that now the insurers are going to do it on their behalf.

The logic of this is so simple, even a caveman could do it, which is the type of people the White House apparently thinks we are.

What’s more, if a Catholic institution is self-insured, then the institution itself is still the one offering birth control coverage.

And read the fine print. The policy announced by Obama today, unlike the original regulation, must undergo a whole new rulemaking process, which will be subject to lobbying by powerful forces like the insurers and NARAL.

The bishops understand all this, as they made clear in a NOT WIDELY REPORTED All-Bishops Letter yesterday. Here are some of the concerns expressed in the letter, written by the leading Catholic bishops, which I found in the National Review, but not in the New York Times.

We remain fully committed to the defense of our religious liberty and we strongly protest the violation of our freedom of religion that has not been addressed. We continue to work for the repeal of the mandate . . .

  • At this point it does not seem that a religiously affiliated health plan (e.g., one run by a Catholic health system) can be offered to the general public and exclude the objectionable services, since most of the public is supposed to have these services included by their insurers automatically.
  • It remains unclear as to how insurers will be compensated for the cost of these items, with some commentators suggesting that such compensation will ultimately be derived from the premiums paid by the religious employer.
  • We are presented with a serious dilemma regarding self-insured plans, where a religious organization is both employer and insurer, and regarding student health plans offered by religious colleges and universities. It appears that such plans will be required to offer the objectionable coverage.
  • Our concern remains strong that the government is creating its own definitions of who is “religious enough” for full protection.
  • It seems clear there is no exemption for Catholic and other individuals who work for secular employers; for such individuals who own or operate a business; or for employers who have a moral (not religious) objection to some procedures such as the abortifacient drug Ella.
  • We may not know the final actual details of some aspects of the policy until well into the New Year.

Instead of emphasizing or even reporting this, many mainstream news sites have highlighted the approval of Obama’s new policy by Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association – a liberal who lobbied for Obamacare and who was probably looking for just the type of fig leaf Obama provided – as well as the initial response Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who called Obama’s move a “step in the right direction” without actually endorsing it.

And Republicans are still objecting, which is duly noted in the stories, though often with a suggestion that runs along the lines of “The Catholics think it’s not too bad, but the Republicans are still throwing fits for their own political purposes.”

The storyline that may well emerge over the next few weeks is that Obama has done something basically acceptable, but that a few zealots remain unconvinced the Republicans want to use the issue to seize the presidency.

But the bishops have spoken unequivocally. It may yet interrupt the peaceful sleep of an issue the White House hopes it has put to rest.

113 thoughts on “The Church Rejects Obama’s Birth Control Deal”

  1. Obama and most of the media will definitely try to spin it that way, but the controversy isn’t going away. There needs to be a solution acceptable to the Catholic Church ASAP. The bishops no longer trust Obama and won’t settle for a temporary waiver and a nebulous promise to work things out in the future.

    1. The church should excommunicate Kathleen Sebelius for clearly acting in opposition to her faith. Even Biden and Daly had enough sense to distance themselves from this attempt to control by edict. Governing by seperation from the church doesn’t mean you abandon all the principles of the teachings. Our laws were founded in Christian-Judeo values after all.

  2. As they rejected the “deal” from Henry VIII, and look where that got them. Will the people of the United States react to the vicious attack from Barack VIII the same way the people of England reacted to the Act of Supremacy and go along with the powers that be or will they reject the concept that the government is the final authority? It is sickening to see how many are cheering this complete erasure of the “Free Exercise” clause of the First Amendment.

  3. If the bishops don’t push for a total repeal of ObamaCare than they are as dumb as Obama hopes they are. When the 2,000 pages were being negotiated originally, the bishops were made certain promises. Obama did not keep them. Now that he’s “reversed” himself if the bishops believe this promise will be kept they deserve everything they will get.

    This is why health care needs to be placed firmly back in the laps of the users. Get the employers and the government out of it.

    1. Robin H, I agree with you that health care/insurance needs to be the responsibility of the individual. This is so obvious to me and I’m surprised that it is mentioned more often.

      Another bugaboo of mine is that ‘health care’ and ‘having insurance’ are used synonymously.

    2. They aren’t dumb, believe me. They cannot acquiesce in this matter. The compromise offered is no compromise, the end result is the same: Religous institutions will have to pay for these services. The insurers sure as heck won’t, they will pass the cost on in the form of higher premiums. The Great Barry knows this. He is attempting to force religous institutions to drop health care altogether so that the government becomes the provider. This, of course, forces individuals to choose between their faith, government insurance or a fine. Nice guy, this President. He seems determined to become the most despised person on the planet.

      1. Until the church stop taking tax dollars and tax exemptions it can never be stated that they are self insured. They are not. It is time to do away with tax ememption of the Catholic Church and their doctrines of forced hate and discrimination. They also need to get out of health care since obviously that is not their intention to provide health care to women but to control them at such a level. It is time to rid ourselves of their hate dogma that has foster the dark ages, the inquisition, the witch trials, the nazi movement (genocide), systematic rape of children, murder, deception, cover ups, and human atrocities abound with their taliban tactics mostly funded by the tax payer who is revulsed by the hate organization.

  4. They continue to think we’re all stupid. Keep underestimating us and they shall see that we are not stupid and have morales and believe in and cheerish our constitution.

  5. What I want to know is why this “preventive” service is to be offered FREE, as they put it? Why not free chemo–don’t people have a “right” to live? Or pursue living? This is so clearly–to me anyhow–a step toward universal control over our medical life–I mean, health…ha ha. There is a much bigger picture here, people–we are tramping in the weeds right now.

      1. Nice analogy–they are like cute border collies corraling people who are just trying to squeeze a living out of this mess and look after their families or people like some of my friends and relatives who think “they mean well.” The doctor asked my why I thought my BP was up–and I said because of the stress of this economy and this administration and my sister piped up, “Oh, don’t get into politics.” Well, SHE never does–except for watching the Playboy Mansion grotto water-poisoned Bill Maher.

  6. “…the Republicans are still throwing fits for their own political purposes.”

    And this is the new method of neutralizing any objection by any Republican to anything wanted by a Democrat. I think it is along the lines of Alinsky’s “ridicule as a weapon” advice. What could undercut any argument more than the entertaining image of an enemy “still throwing fits.”

    You have made it clear, Keith.

    Why no comment on Michelle Obama’s “Me-me-me-athon” across the nation? She’s part of the WH, too. Her actions are not as directly important politically, but her FLOTUS Circus could well decide the election.

  7. What the heck is going on in the WhiteHouse and who’s running the show?
    This attempt to override the First Amendment is surely being noticed by the Supremes who will decide on the fate of Obamacare. We have religious leaders of all faiths united in their opposition to any mandate of this kind.
    The mandate to purchase health insurance will now be aided by this bad law’s attempt to circumvent the constitutional directive of separation of church and state.

    The Dems, with their backing of the violent OWS movement, the union thugs, PlannedParenthood’s fulisade against the benign Susan G. Koman charity, and now this attack against the Catholic Church, have gone beyond the line Americans would accept.
    It’s almost as if this President is aiming to throw the election with the bone-headed moves that personify the extreme left.

    1. It does seem that he is trying to throw the election, doesn’t it? I wondered at the time what in the world he was thinking to attempt to do something that would so alienate so much of his voter base. Either he doesn’t want to be President any more but doesn’t want to be seen to be giving up, or something else is coming down the pike — perhaps some crisis that will necessitate delaying the election indefinitely. Maybe a few years ago that would have sounded tin-hatty, but these days, I’m not so sure.

      1. Suspending the election is a notion that has been on my mind for some time. He/they just do not seem to care what kind of outrageous trash they put out there that people will object to enough to not vote for The Communist. I am sure that the creative left has thought of several scenarios that can be used to create a crisis big enough to keep Emperor Barry on his throne. Then there is always the Iran/Israel confrontation that is coming to a head.

    2. The attack on Komen was coordinated with the issuance of the contraceptive mandate. A Komen board member had a quiet, private conversation with the president of PP in december to notify them of their new direction in grant giving.
      PP held the info secret until the mandate was issued. The femi-nazis attacked Komen and were still in attack mode to go after anyone objecting to the mandate.
      Never underestimate the coordination on the left.

      1. I don’t want to send this in another direction, but the O’Reilly Factor had two non-Catholic female clergy members with unflattering haircuts and collars on to talk about how this is about women’s “rights.” I did not really get it–I do think Fox was told to put the lid on criticism of the admin–there seem to be more “libs” now than conservatives and certainly more than before, say a year ago. Even O’Reilly won’t “say” Michelle is involved in decision-making and shouts down people who try to (Miss Laura). Cavuto is all devil’s advocate–I think THEY would say blah-blah he responds to anyone who criticizes the WH. Is the fix in everyplace? Eeek–I feel outnumbered.

        1. I have always watched O’Reilly he seems to have taken a very
          different take toward Obama kinder add that to the very Liberal
          Shep and I am starting to grow a bit wary of Fox.

          1. Shep is suppopsedly news, not opinion, so his obvious bias is horrible. O’Reilly has always been a boiler-downer–well, what it amts to is this…etc. Now what it amts to is well, let the “folks” decide, or whatEVER.

      2. Ahn ha – I’m right. Andrew Sullivan has a piece coming out in Newsweek outlining the Presidents election strategy which is to marginalize conservatives as anti-contraception etc. all these moves: Komen and mandate are part of his master plan. Read it at Politico.

    3. He isn’t trying to throw the election srdem. He’s trying to institutionalize his collectivist policies so they can’t be reversed even if he loses the election. That is why he is pushing one affront to American culture after another. He is hoping that by stripping away our freedoms inch by inch, day by day, people who aren’t paying attention will come to accept the totalitarian state he so desires. Every time he says his policies are “baby steps” it sends chills down my spine because I know those baby steps will eventually turn into a boot on the neck of individual freedom and liberty. We need to stay vigilant and stay strong.

    4. I always believed that Valerie Jarrett was running the show. There has been plenty of turnover at the top, The two of them share very similar backgrounds- too damn similar to be a coincidence.

  8. Sister Keehan is a stooge for the Obama Administration. She is wheeling and dealing with Catholic hospital ownership and policies. Whoever is her boss needs to remove her to give the most credibility to the Church’s position.

    So, the Administration doesn’t care about the 1st Amendment, and tramples it. We know what he would like to do to the 2nd Amendment. I guess he is going to do it by the numbers.

  9. OT – At CPAC yesterday, Andrew Breitbart said he has video of Obama during his college years that he will release. I wonder what they show – I hope it has him saying he is going to school as a foreigner.

      1. Waiting to see the “whites of their eyes” before he releases it I would think. And I cannot wait. I hope and pray that once the general starts, there are going to be a lot of unsavory things released that are going to put a stink on Little Barry that he will not be able to wash off. I hope people will be more receptive to his vetting this time around now that they have seen what a total dangerous cretin he is.

  10. Obama & the ObaClowns think that everyone is like the hustlers in Chicago. All they wanted was to save face and live to game the system another day.

    Meeting people who actually have principles must be an awful shock for this lot.

  11. Srdem65—Ruth Ginsberg made a point recently to say that she would not be retiring before the 2012 election! The handwriting is on the wall…and the table is set. With the three vestal virgins, Sotomayer, Kagen and Ginserg, who needs enemies?

  12. Oh, and speaking of ‘tentmakers’ —-MOOchelles fav, Jason Wu, now has a ‘designer’ line of women’s clothing at Target! I’m sure the duds are all manufactured in the USA, NOT! Capitalism – it’s okay for MOOshelle and friends….but not you and me….

    1. Hmmmm…. isn’t Target where Moochy just happened to be shopping when her kiving a la peasants was captured by a cell phone?????? Interestng coimcidence.

  13. For too long churches and their local pastors have been silent, while secular government shapes public policy, thereby molding (bad) morality to accommodate the ever encroaching downward trend of fallen human nature. In short, Christianity, as represented by modern churches, its leadership and flocks, has shirked their responsibilities, failing to be the “salt of the earth” and “exposing the deeds of darkness,” as commanded by Holy Scripture, the same Scripture they profess to trumpet. [Matthew 5:13,14 and Ephesians 5:11]

    For too many decades, Christian churches and their leadership have allowed themselves to be mum on moral issues while liberal politicians exercise their raw influence by abusing the public trust given them by election. Rather than carefully appropriating hard earned taxpayers’ money, irresponsible and unworthy politicians misuse those entrusted monies for their selfish and politically targeted interests, among which have been to feed the insatiable immoral desires of destructive culture bashing endeavors, such as Planned Parenthood’s subtle agenda of abortion genocide. And, all this, on the taxpayers’ dime, contrary to citizen individual consciences:

    “Abortion genocide:”

    Many others and I are most concerned about our nation’s preservation, according to the Declaration of Independence principles of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” We could list other areas of government attempted political molestation where First Amendment rights are under assault. For instance – the whole area of the taxpayer funded Educational Industry, where government collusion with bully (type) unions, have mandated the godless instruction of evolution and the exclusion of opposing views.

    1. Pastor,

      I agree with your points, and would like to add that many of today’s modern churches are more concerned about maintaining their tax exempt status than they are in preaching against the evils that have befallen our society.

      Many of these said same evils come from Washington, and to speak out against them would be a violation of the ban on political speech from the pulpit. The way to reverse this is to either eliminate the tax exemption or to allow pastors, priest, and rabbis to speak to the truth of what is going on without fear of loosing their exemptions.

      I personally would prefer the elimination of the tax exemptions. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s. And then speak boldly and loudly the truth!

      1. “[M]any of today’s modern churches are more concerned about maintaining their tax exempt status than they are in preaching against the evils that have befallen our society.”

        So true and, if it weren’t so sad, it would be funny because many of the arguments for the American Revolution were made in churches across the colonies.

  14. Pingback: THE NO FOOTBALL SATURDAY GRUDGE | PoliNation

  15. The problem for President Obama is that he must function, willingly or otherwise, at the behest of intransigent left wing ideologues in his political base.  There comes a point where Obama pushes people
    to make a choice of clinging to their religious beliefs or being forced into embracing the political and social dogma of the adherents Marx, Mao, and
    Guevara.  The Catholic Church is like a sturdy tree that does not bend to fashionable social winds without disputation and
    contention.  Have not Obama’s dimwitted “run-ins” with religion been as predictable as the fool who is soon easily parted with
    his money?  The perception lingers among many that Obama clings to religion in order to embrace a voter demographic that
    benefits him politically and to cloak himself in its votes. 

    His attempt at “accommodation” on the issue of contraception and abortifacients is merely a transparent political maneuver and even the most gullible will
    see that there is no free lunch when it comes to providing expensive drugs for “free.”  When the left wing drops the next foot and forces him to extend
    the concept of making elective abortions “free” as part of everyone’s insurance coverage, the assertion of its being another issue of women’s “health” will not satisfy the
    church as well.  Somewhere, lost in the costs of insurance benefits, the free lunch will be added to the premium bill.  The Catholic Church is too far ahead of Obama
    and is very reasonable in its opposition to subsidizing what clearly violates its religious principles.  The church is not prohibiting availability of contraception for the public, but will not be
    forced into having to subsidize it and should rightly oppose it as an infringement on its religious teachings.  Ultimately the
    issue resolves around a haughty governmental behemoth trying to intrude into everyone’s lives with health benefit mandates that the free market should control to begin with.  In this sense it becomes an issue of freedom
    as well as an infringement on religious rights of not only the Catholic Church and its faith.  The accommodation that Obama makes should be
    one of withdrawing contraception coverage entirely as a mandate and letting people pay for their own beliefs.

  16. Keith, the self insurance issue is a BIG one in that most , if not all, large Catholic institutions self insure their risks. This would include hospitals, as well as the churches themselves. They would, therefore, still be paying for practices that violate the teachings of the church. In other words, “the president” has conceded absolutely nothing. The bishops were correct to reject his “amended” plan.

    The mystery to me is exactly why this “outstanding” campaigner (as the MSM calls him) picked this fight in an election year–especially as so many in the Catholic church have supported him previously.

  17. What isn’t mentioned is that some Catholic diocese’s already offer employee health insurance plans that cover birth control. Their leadership protests are a smokescreen to make people believe they still stand up for the moral tenets of the church. If they did, the likes of the Kennedys, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Cuomo, etc. would not be able to claim to be Catholic because they would have been excommunicated decades ago. And more importantly, they wouldn’t keep covering up their sexual abuse of children which is ongoing.

    1. It is a curiosity that the leftists maintain an agenda to defame and marginalize the Catholic Church in our culture and continue to raise the pedophile priest issue. Perhaps it is because the church fails to honor the bath house habits of the gay community and does not wish to encourage or subsidize them with spousal marriage benefits?
      In any event you need to avoid the hypocrisy of taking the church to task for its past NAMBLA members because , unlike the gay community in the past, the church in no way endorsed pedophilia with overt support for NAMBLA. The chief offenders in the church were in fact directly associated with NAMBLA, a long related sub-community of gays who believe in having sex with 8 year old boys after they are done marching under their banner in gay pride parades while people like you applauded.
      Why not ask the gay activists why they ever permitted NAMBLA to march in support of what you defame the Catholic Church over and ask them to assume ownership of some of your vitriolic gambit?

  18. Thanks to honest journalist like you and the new conservative media, this issue will not be swept under the rug with his feigned reversal of the mandate. So wonderful to see the church actually stand up to Obama’s overreach. The leftists who pretended outrage at first – the fake sister and DNC loyalists like Tim Kaine – are swell with this compromise. They are all just players in the game these shysters are playing on us. The only way they can impose change is to create a crisis. An old Alinsky tactic. Too bad for them, we are on to the con and now many, many others are waking up. This nightmare will end when these Perón clones are kicked to the curb and we elect true conservatives to Congress and the White House. We can change course before it is too late.

  19. so either way someone else is telling me how I should live my life and what is good for me, right? No one is making the catholics do anything they do not want to do and no one is forceing anyone to violate their own personal religious choices…ie the bishops are not forced to take birth control or to get a vasectomy!! If the Catholics do not want anyone forcing them to do anything they do not want…why is it OK for the Catholics to force someone else not to follow their own will???

    1. I think you are confusing the concept of man’s free will and the dogma or doctrine of the church.

      Unlike Islam, no one is forcing you to stay Catholic, you can leave the church at anytime and not have to worry about losing your head. If you have a disagreement with the doctrine of the church you are free to find another place to worship.

      However, the doctrinal basis of the church, any church, needs to be maintained in order to stay true to what the church’s precepts are. If the government were to come to Protestant denominations and insist that they could no longer teach the doctrine of sanctification or personal salvation or predestination, what have you, the government would then be eroding the theological and doctrinal basis by which the church was based.

      Same holds true for the Catholics. Their doctrinal beliefs are under attack by the very idea that they must somehow be forced to pay for or provide contraceptives etc. The Church of Rome has historically held that birth control is something that is against its doctrinal beliefs. Government intrusion in this area is tantamount to forcing a church to change their doctrine in order to fit into whatever construct the government wants.

      If you are Catholic and want to use birth control, there is not going to be a priest or nun peeking in your window to see if you have on a rubber. But the government is peeking in the window of the church and trying to force the church to acquiesce to its demands to provide a service that goes against the church’s doctrinal beliefs.

    2. I see the issue one of separation of state and church: it’s not about mangers, crucifixes, or any other manifestation of one’s faith.

      It’s “can the federal government legally compel a church, any church, and its believers to do/buy something against its beliefs?”

        1. If you don’t like their dogma bill, then leave the church and find a church you will feel welcomed and comfortable. God does not want us to languish in a place where we can not grow spiritually. Find a church that has as its doctrine the same belief structure that you have. That is the joy of free will. We are allowed to make our own choices be they good, bad or ugly.

        2. How, if you do not work for a Catholic organization are you forced to abide by their dogma? Do you mean that it gauls you that your view of what is right and wrong isn’t being enforced everywhere? That you must bear up under the knowledge that others are arranging their world differently from what you believe to be the best way?

          1. Bill, I just read further on the thread and see your explanation of your situation — Baptist working for a union that gets its insurance via a local Catholic hospital that is “the only game in town.”

            I see better why you feel you are being compelled to live by Catholic standards — it must be annoying.

            But still, should Catholics violate their beliefs because you are stuck in an odd situation? If I were insensitive I would suggest that you move to another town and get another job where you can rejoice in the exercise of all the things that you feel the Catholics are not subsidizing your doing. But I know it’s not that easy to jump jobs or leave a community, so I guess all I can do is say that I hope another insurance option opens up for you somehow without costing the Catholics their conscience.

  20. I’d like to “register” the thought that nothing is “free”. Health coverage is part of a benefits package: one way or another, the employer pays out and the employee gets something. So even if you don’t pay for it at the store, it’s not “free”.
    And I want to remind people again that governments, of and by themselves, do not have money: not the village, not the small town, not the city, state or nation. Must not all monies come from the governed?

  21. and just one more thought on birthcontrol, vasectomy, tubals and the like…so the Catholics dont believe in them today and ‘outlaw’ them…what if the pope wakes up tomorrow and does not believe in diabetes or high blood pressure. Would we not have access to insulin or BP meds??? Where does it end…how about some personal choice on your own health care choices?

      1. forceful denial with my health care benefit package…which is part of my employee compensation VIA a catholic health plan even as I am NOT catholic and I work for a machine shop…which is not catholic. They are the only game in town so I am forced into their doctrine. Thats how I come to ‘forceful denial’.

        1. You have the option of not taking the company provided insurance if it is such a big issue for you, as it seems to be. You have the option of getting your own private insurance and then can control what coverage is available to you.

          Just because you are in the situation you are in as far as your employment does not mean that you are stuck with the insurer that they are providing. You have the right to make your own choices. Granted you may have to pay more for coverage, but what price is your freedom to choose worth? You need to think outside the box as it were, rather than pillory an organization for standing up for what it believes.

          Oh, and while the Church of Rome is not in anyway, shape or form perfect, they have provided comfort, education, medical and poor relief to millions around the world. I wish you would take a bit more moderate approach to them, as they have done as much or more good as they have bad.

      1. Isn’t anyone else bothered by how a class of “free” drugs and procedures was separated out and shoved through in the bill? This is red flag red flag for me!! I thought the bill said the govt would set some minimum standards for what must be contained in policies we were required to buy or split with an employerr–not what we had to get for “free” or what the employer must “give.”

        1. Like Nancy said “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it…”. If I remember correctly the term “the secretary shall” is one of the most common phrases in Obamacare. Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are responsible for putting every American’s health care into the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is why it is so important that Obamacare is pulled up by the roots and the ground doused with Weed-B-Gone.

    1. This is why health insurance must be seperated from employers and the government. Imagine a grocery store of insurance options. You’re free to buy what you need and I can buy what I need. Just like at the store now, you can choose between brand name food and generic. Or choose chicken instead of filet. I’m sure you didn’t mean to, but you’ve made my point for me.

    2. bill, if you don’t want to support the Church’s beliefs, don’t work for them. No one is making you take a job with the Catholic Church or any associated group.

      Why should YOU be able to tell this group of religious people what YOU think they should provide insurance for. Suppose YOU decide that sex with animals is right — should YOU have the power to for everyone else to support your activity through the purchase of free condoms or free golden retrievers? You seem to feel that your personal standards of what is right and wrong is somehow the universal standard that we all should follow.

        1. i dont work for a catholic employer…I have my insurance from my employer (a machine shop) VIA a catholic hospital which is the only game in town. I am not catholic but baptist. The question still remains….why can they force me to do something against my will (unable to get a vasectomy) and they cry their religious freedoms are being violated. NO ONE is forcing them to do ANYTHING personally against their will it is the consumer who is suffering against their will. Again what if the Pope suddenly does not believe in diabetes tomorrow…will all of the diabetics suffer because of his dogma??????

          1. I am Catholic my hospital is Seventh Day Adventist the only thing
            I have seen different is the gift shop is closed on Saturday. The
            treatment I get is always perfection although it’s a bit harder to
            round up a Priest but they’ll ways send a Chaplin to tide me over
            and the last remark was humor.

          2. well again why is someone else that is not directly involved in my health care feel they have the right to say what I can or cant do? And what should be a bigger question is what if the pope gets a message from God that is the Catholics no longer believe in Diabetes??? Lets ban insulin and all of the other diabetic medications, I know it is a stretch but it is the principal of the matter. No one is going to the church to force the church janitor or secretary to take the pills…how about all of the other people that are not directly tied to the catholic church that have to follow like little sheep. Hey I did not sign up for the catholic dogma and I don’t go to a catholic church why do I have to play by their rules?
            Nice comments here…move, get a new job, etc…WHY, I am NOT catholic!!!

          3. As blondie said, nobody is stopping you from getting a vasectomy. You just have to pay for it yourself. Freedom isn’t free, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with selling your freedom for the price of a vasectomy paid for by the Catholic church. Take it from an old gal who was raised as a Southern Baptist, bill the baptist you are not.

        2. typical catholic liberal thought…my way is right and you are crazy. Oh yeah, i believe in an invisible man with a white beard that lives in the sky and I must follow the tenants that are given from some pedophile supporting man who is the only one who can talk to the invisible man…do i have this right? and I am delusional, really???? Oh wait, I must be talking to a liberal catholic!!

          1. As it’s Sunday I was trying to be the better person as we
            good Christian folks are having a ruff spot of bother as it
            seems someone else thinks he’s God. He’s not. If I were
            honest I also was offended but turned the other cheek I’ve
            done it so much I out of cheeks to turn:)

          2. I actually felt like a calmer and better person until that Lew came on Meet the Depressed. Talk about bland, pompous and blah–Austen Goulsbee, you have met your match! We know it all, don’t bother your pretty heads over it, better minds are at work, go back to your American Idol. “Women have a right to free preventive care”–how the HECK did this become accepted fact? Yick–that guy makes my skin crawl.

          3. What they are really saying is we will somehow give “free” care so we can be all up in your business, send doctors to your house, have nurses call you to see if you took a pill, put you on a reducing diet, limit the food you can buy, the operations you can have, make you jump in a gunnysack, etc etc.

          4. You’re a Baptist and you mock God as “an invisible man with a white beard that lives in the sky?”

            And you summarize the Catholic priesthood as “some pedophile supporting man who is the only one who can talk to the invisible man?” or is it only the Pope of whom you speak?

            It was shameful that the Catholic leaders did not immediately excommunicate the pedophiles among them, a shame that can never be wiped out.

            But to discredit the entire church is to do a great wrong. And to refer to God in such a cartoony stereotypical way makes me wonder how much of a Baptist you can be. The Baptists I know respect God.

          5. yes, the pope is the only one able to interpret the word of god…and they still are very apathetic to the kid touchers that they harbor. I was raised religious but have LOTS of questions!!
            Sorry if you were offended.

  22. I think we will discover that this was all a ploy set up to allow muslims four wives in the U.S.

    muslims in The Hague are already arguing that dogs should be banned from public places so they should be offended by seeing dogs, which they claim prevents them from their right live their religion.

    How much better if they could skip all the litigation jihaad and have The One set the groundwork for every kind of islamism to be imposed upon the public world in the name of making muslims feel comfortable. How better than to go through the Catholic Church in a fake fight that ends with the Christians able to restrict what they offer their employees. Just one step to muslims arguing that the mulitple marriage is really a charity institution for widows, etc., and they must be able to do this. And the men must be protected from the sight of “uncovered meat” (i.e., women not in a burkah) in public or they are being prevented from living their religion freely, etc. Surely there will be many deluded liberal non-muslim women happy to don the cloth cage in the name of muslim men’s religious freedom.

    1. Rereading this, I see that I sound a bit “out there.” I hope time proves that I am borrowing trouble and this is not a part of a grand Alinsky plan to lead us by the nose into dhimmi-tude.

      Obama’s enthusiastic bow to the Saudi King has never faded from my mind. I suspect a great deal of money may have come from foreign muslim governments for his election. After all, once they took the tracking controls off his campaign donations, his illegal alien auntie was able to make two contributions for his election. If she can do this as she lives here illegally, works here illegally, and resides in Boston public housing, what could foreign muslim leaders accomplish to buy the already Islamophile Obama?

  23. Simply put : If the Republican Party would change the name of the Grand Ole Party to the American Party, then how would it sound when the left criticises the Americans for not caring about social issues.

    I for one am now an official charter member of the American Party.
    Care to join in Keith?

  24. Pingback: MSM not reporting Bishops’ NO to BHO | PoliNation

  25. A couple of entries back, I wondered how the Muslim population viewed this particular mandate. I needn’t have wondered: the entire American Muslim population has an exemption from Health Care Law because it was against their beliefs to participate.

      1. flyingmonkey 8 hours ago

        It’s hard to understand why a supposedly good Christian like Mr. Obama is blind to the sensitivities of his fellow believers while giving the entire Muslim population an exemption from the Health Care Law because it was against their beliefs to participate. Makes one think, doesn’t it?

        Read more:
        This is/was a comment to Feldman’s post.

  26. I would like to thank Keith and this wonderful place for conversation and exchange of ideas for joining us in our battle for religious freedom. It matters not what your faith is we are all in danger of having it taken away and must stick together. Thanks Keith!

  27. Nothing in this world is “free” and for the POTUS to suggest this is is disingeneous at the very least.
    The solution is for mass ex-communication of every (supposedly) Catholic serving in Government that support this. Sebelious is one, Pelosi, Biden and Panetta others. Then perhaps someone with common sense will get involved.

  28. Even yet, the mighty Boa has seen not a word from the muslims. Why is that? Very curious indeed.

    Of course, the latest defense of O’Bozo is that he had NO IDEA that this would be the response. One article was even headlined “O’Bozo, burned by religion again”…..

    He knew full well that this would be the response. Unfortunately, 45 percent of Catholics voted for the muslim infiltrator, despite his vehement support of abortion. A large portion of the Catholic church supported O’Bozo and continued to support his policies of “wealth redistribution” and O’Bozo-care. There are several popular descriptions of this. Lie with dogs, get up with fleas. Play with a snake, you get bitten. Play with the devil, you get burned.

    As is always the case with O’Bozo, this has less to do with “birth control” and more to do with control and his ability to force people to bend to his will. The mighty Boa feels O’Bozo is willing to sacrifice a few votes to further his agenda. He will probably “succumb” to the Church. Then he will use it to his advantage. Campaigning, he will claim that is was HE who “worked with” religious groups to “ensure” their religious freedoms. Of course, once he is in for his 2nd term, he’ll change his mind. Only a fool takes this clown at his word. Remember Stupak? He didn’t want to vote for O’Bozo-care until O’Bozo PROMISED him there would be no public funding for abortion? Yet here we are.

    It will be very interesting to see what percentage of Catholics vote for him this time…..

    1. Ah Stupak. What a turncoat. Haven’t heard what his opinion is on this unconstitutional mandate. He must have fallen off the edge of the earth after his betrayal.

    2. “There are several popular descriptions of this. Lie with dogs, get up with fleas. Play with a snake, you get bitten. Play with the devil, you get burned.”

      Agree and I might add ‘dancing with the devil’. The church has scoffed at the Nation’s laws and been active in the sanctuary movement for the looters here illegally. They were. of course, allowed to do this with impunity and 0bama felt that they owed him this encroachment.

      Agree and I might add ‘dancing with the devil’.

  29. Thanks to Quite Rightly for the blog link. Has the NY Times, WAPO, LA Times, WSJ or any of the talking heads on TV mentioned that his original edict already has the force of law? Unbelievable. This usurper already put into law the original regulation. He flat out stood up in front of the camera and lied. Any “accommodations” to the regulation the liar-in-chief proffered will have to go through the regulatory process all over again. Just like the phony executive order he signed to get Stupak to sell his soul, he promised the church he won’t enforce the regulation for another year. He wants to silence them until after the election. Thank goodness the church is not backing down.

    1. He outright lies every time he opens his mouth. I can’t believe there aren’t more people of all stripes upset about this not just because of
      the religious aspects but his total disreguard for the rule of law and his
      constant circumventing of the Constitution. We are on a very slippery
      slope. And just to add to the general feeling have we all seen the shameful displays MO has been putting on? Dancing and telling soldiers what they can eat really you might die tomorrow but no fries for
      you! A condemned man gets a last meal.

    1. Moe, thanks for that link. In their report is a link that takes you to the
      federal register PDF document filed Friday, Feb 10, at 3:45pm.

      I’ve read the entire document but it’s still a bit confusing. I agree the Bishops (and others) won’t be happy if they were lied to. Can you imagine if Obama is willing to stick it to us like this before an election, what will he do if re-elected?

  30. Pingback: Must Know Headlines —

Comments are closed.