“I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” Carney said when asked at today’s White House briefing about the regulation.
—White House Spokestool and Rodeo Clown Jay Carney on the impending HHS regulation requiring all health-care plans in the United States to pay for sterilization and contraceptives…including those that induce abortions.
Now to be fair, it isn’t like I expected him to say anything else. When your already part of the administration that approved the larger unconstitutional scheme, you HAVE to take the position that there is nothing unconstitutional about your unconstitutional details.
And predictably, the Catholic Church pushed back….as they should have. Uncle has been encroaching on the purview of religion in this country for far too long. But what surprised me was the outrage that came to the fore in Greater Leftardia.
For two days I have read expressions of unfathomable hatred toward religion, informed by astonishing ignorance, and cognitive dissonance that would have caused their declarants screaming nervous breakdowns if presented on any other topic.
So much hand-wringing over a “woman’s right to choose [to murder her child under the cloak of “privacy”]”, and not a single thought for a religious organization’s “right to choose” not to participate in acts that are repugnant and contrary to every belief that they hold dear. That is the essence of freedom of conscience, and if you say that there is nothing wrong with this, then there is nothing beyond the reach of the government, because you have surrendered the right to have a belief contrary from that of the government, and the right to live according to it.
For those claiming that the Church’s “open letter” should strip it of its tax exempt status, you have it backwards. The Government is encroaching on the Church, not the other way around. The response has been non-violent, and very reasonable.
And for those who are incensed that the Church would resist being compelled to take part in your most holy of sacraments, the rite of killing your child, it is one thing for you to eagerly embrace evil, it is quite another for you force others to participate. And the idea that it being “your body” somehow gives you the right to privacy, but that government can tell someone else what they must do with regard to those they assist? That disconnect is miles away from any logical conclusion.
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death 
It is quite possible Obama has just crossed a line here that has awakened the beast beyond his ability to control as you are quite right…. even the Liberals are “out of their minds” pissed about this. To a degree, it’s ironic that it took something like this to wake people up about Obama but I’ll certainly take it as a big negative toward his re-election prospects. It will be interesting to see what the liberal (George Soros controlled) media will do with it.
If people were to think seriously about it, we would shortly realize en masse that religious freedom is only possible in a nation whose government is restricted to a very small set of duties and powers: mainly the protection of property rights. Fisher Ames, who wrote the final draft of the First Amendment, said as much in his commentary on it.
But we don’t think about such things any more, do we?
I guess I’ll have to go off and do my own research since you’ve inadequately described the regulation. If I only go by your words, insurance companies are being compelled to subsidize contraception and sterilization. I’m not sure how, again based on your own words, the regulation compels Catholics to have abortions.
If I can chop out a chunk of time, I’ll read up on this pending regulation but based on the little you’ve provided here, I don’t really see why your undies are in a knot.
Just a taste for my search engine challenged friend.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/01/obama_vs_the_clergy_112986.html#.TylvjEOEhtQ.facebook
And this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/31/the_war_on_religion_declared__112965.html
Consider the source, BIC. The respondent’s source – not yours. 😉
Catholic charities feed more poor than any entity on earth. They do this through the generosity of their parishioners – not forced – but voluntarily out of pocket.
To the Rutherford’s of the world, pagan liberals too are incredibly generous in their desire of caring for the poor – with other people’s money, of course. Never their own.
That alone says much about the true character of most liberals. Their hypocrisy and mendacity knows no bounds.
The respondent (me?) had no source. My comment was based solely on BiW’s article. Now with kind thanks to you and the author, I’ll click the links and find out what all the hubbub is about.
I would add BIC with specific respect to the article, the Rutherford’s of the world also hate Christianity. No matter how they might frame their argument, that is undeniable. Any good works or core tenets of Christians is immediately suspect and tainted, because it didn’t come with liberal approval and approved by their master, the secular government.
Sick bunch these liberals, aren’t they?
Well, since you gave me two opinion pieces instead of anything objective I pointed my Google-challenged brain toward this article:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/30926
which states The final rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Jan. 20, says that starting on Aug. 1, 2013, health plans must cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including hormonal contraceptives such as birth control pills, implanted devices such as intrauterine devices (IUDs), Plan B emergency contraceptives (the “morning-after” pill), and sterilization — all without charging a copay, coinsurance, or a deductible.
The plans will not have to cover abortions, however.
Churches and church-affiliated secondary schools are exempt from the rule, but other organizations with religious affiliations — including universities, charities, and hospitals — must comply.
So for starters, abortion is not covered. Secondly, actual churches are not covered by the ruling. The institutions that are covered (shall we say Catholic influenced) seem fair game to me. Providing insurance for birth control, one of the best ways to avoid the need for an abortion, makes perfect sense.
Having to provide proper insurance coverage for a procedure does not equate to having to promote that procedure.
P.S. Michele Malkin? Really?
P.P.S. Gerson mentions the EEOC Supreme Court ruling. I’ll be writing about that one in a couple of days. 😉
It’s a little bit more than”influenced”, and it also mandates abortifacients, thus making them a party to the act, let alone making them go against their stated beliefs regarding contraceptives.
Secondly, it really isn’t up to the Federal Government to mandate to private parties what “proper insurance coverage” is.
“Gerson mentions the EEOC Supreme Court ruling. I’ll be writing about that one in a couple of days.”
Yea. Another brilliant tour de force from someone who knows dick about the law, and less about the Constitution will be casting pixels with the burning insights that someone else who knows as much, or worse, knows better, has told him to be outraged over. I can’t wait.
Damn, “casting pixels”. I LIKE that. If I ever start another blog, I think I’ll name it Casting Pixels.
And when you do, I’ll tell you where you can send the royalty payments.
It would truly be a trip to watch every religiously affiliated hospital (almost all of Tulsa’s coverage) say, “Fine, we are closing our doors immediately due to the ruling of the HHS.” It may come to that.
And I guarantee you on that day, not only would thousands die on account of the jackbooted ruling of the HHS, there will be such an outrage of the overreach by the federal government, Obama and his ilk would be toast. The ends might justify the means.
I just hope I am not a patient at that time and men like Rutherford are. Throw them out on the street for a lifetime of egregious bullying, propaganda and theft to let them face death without assistance or hospice.
Something similar happened in NJ not too many years ago, and the doctors and nurses went on pseudo-strike – government caved. Catholic hospitals need to take a stand again.
These jackboots have gone too far…
Providing insurance for birth control, one of the best ways to avoid the need for an abortion, makes perfect sense.
D’oh!
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/birth-control/pfizer-recalls-1-million-packets-of-birth-control-pills-1
Just wait ’till they are only being made by companies willing to take what government is willing to pay!
Now that I’ve read a bit and thought a bit I’ve come to a conclusion that you’re not going to like.
There is this thing called the medical business. It’s a business that involves using the latest medical technologies to help people live their lives to the fullest. When you get into that business it is your sworn duty to assist people using the best methods at your disposal. It is not a moral business per se, except to the extent of “do no harm”.
So, if Catholics cannot conduct the “medical business” as it is supposed to be conducted, they should get the hell out of it. If Catholics insist on promoting the antediluvian notion that birth control is somehow wrong, then they don’t belong practicing medicine. Leave the practice to those less ignorant of proper medical procedures.
HHS is fully within its right to demand that birth control be fully insured. It is the only common sense way to make sure that abortion is safe and rare. Churches don’t practice medicine, thank God. Hospitals, regardless of religious affiliation do. They should therefore act like 21st century hospitals and not like churches.
Bravo to Kathleen Sibelius!!!!
Rutherford, at times, your ignorance is truely astonishing.
Instead of “coming to conclusions”, I suggest that you examine who really provided the hospitals in this country for the majority of people.
Secondly, in the case of Catholic hospitals and charities, they have provided medical care perfectly competently, without the government mandating how they do so for decades, and without violating their principals.
You are a curious study in having it both ways. In the post after this, you talk about people living up to their religious convictions. The Catholic church, with its numerous health care affiliations, does just that, but because it refuses to consider the murder of children to be in line with “first do no harm”, and does not imbue it with the same sanctity you do, its beliefs must yield to the learned opinion of Dr. Rutherford.
That much spin must require a huge dose of Dramamine.
It’s not just Rutherford’s ignorance that is astonishing.
In many ways, I suspect Rutherford is very much like the thugs, the lackeys, the rubes, the gullible and fearful across this world that have played their individual roles in the death of millions, perfectly content to let government dictate the moral conscience of the nation – by fiat if necessary.
Don’t think America can’t slip into Shinto Japan, Nazi Germany, Communist China, the Stalinist Soviet Republic. I fear we are slowly heading that way. The pace quickens. And that was exactly what bothered me during the 2008 election about Obama and his adoring followers. Not just a desire for a vote, but a form of worship and adulation, which Obama fed to his loyal subjects clearly replete with symbols of divinity. That is why millions like me hold Obama and his loyal subjects in such great suspicion. To this day, it is close as I have ever witnessed to Americans chanting, “Dear Leader…”
Millions of loyal subjects, not much different than Rutherford, whose moral conscience is dictated by whatever the almighty state established for the sake of unfulfilled promises of personal gain, safety net or assurances of good tidings (We are the Ones), which has led too many a nation to totalitarianism. And Rutherford is a loyal subject of his Emperor.
There is no way around BIC. Rutherford is an enemy of moral clarity to the death, believing in the sovereignty and goodness of godless men. And it is time many of accepted there is nothing virtuous about the Rutherford. Rutherford is wicked when stripped, and that has become abundantly clear concerning several situations over the past three years.
This requires bold measures by the Catholic Church, and I hope they have the backbone required to stand by their core convictions. Shut the health care and hospitals down, if necessary.
People will probably die needlessly on account of this, and the fault will lie with government, though the Rutherford’s of the world will do everything in their power to point the fingers at the Church, casting the blame on men of clear conscience willing to buck Dear Leaders.
The Catholic Church might indeed become America’s Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So be it.
Religion, being so contradictory itself, leads to seemingly contradictory discussions.
Correction: Rutherford is butt-ugly when stripped. Thank &diety that I don’t have to worry about dating anymore. 🙂
Religion, being so contradictory itself, leads to seemingly contradictory discussions.
Sitting in the cheap seats really occludes one’s vision, does it not?
Rather than sitting on the sidelines, hurling spitballs at things which you have repeatedly demonstrated no aptitude for, you could always make the effort to put yourself in some knowledge.
I know it is much more challenging than pretending you know what you’re talking about as you criticize people for falling short of a standard (which we by our nature MUST do), when you yourself make no such effort to demand anything for yourself other than what the State demands of you, but even trying something simple like reading through the Bible in a year might at least better equip you for these conversations than you are.
So you believe a year of Bible study would disabuse me of the notion that the Bible is full of contradictions, ones that have been identified to me (Cliff Notes style) by many non-believers way better versed in the scripture than am I? I don’t think you believe that. I agree with you that my “ammo” would be more lethal were I better informed.
I demand of myself what my parents raised me to demand of myself. I don’t look to the State or to religion to set my moral compass. Had I been raised by reprobate parents of any religious or non-religious persuasion, I would probably be a reprobate. The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, regardless of what church the tree attends.
Being on the road I haven’t really been able to properly research this. However, it certainly seems that this application or regulation by fiat would require Catholic, and other religiously supported facilities to, in fact provide actual abortions upon demand.
That is just plain immoral in my book. But so is the whole obamacare thing.
I can just imagine what will come next though. Flight for Life becoming an air taxi for leftest politicos..?
So you believe a year of Bible study would disabuse me of the notion that the Bible is full of contradictions, ones that have been identified to me (Cliff Notes style) by many non-believers way better versed in the scripture than am I?
Rutherford:
(1) Any time you rely on others to suppy the source material for your arguments, you run the very real risk of being deceived. And that is exactly what has happened to you on this topic.
(2) I have observed enough of you to know that you are capable of drawing out the greater understanding of what the book contains by reading it yourself. I KNOW that in so doing, you are capable of learning that what you believe to be contradiction isn’t, though whether you actually do so is entirely dependent upon you, which is of course, one of the central points of Christianity.
(3) As for making your arguments “more lethal”, you suffer from delusions of adequacy. My faith and understanding is no more challenged by a person who hasn’t even read what he would presume to criticize than the average third grader is capable of authoring a great literary work. However, if you think it possible, by all means. Take up the gauntlet I just smacked you with and prove me wrong.
(4) And something for you to consider as you wad up your spitballs… do you think a society with a religious standard common to all or nearly all in it is healthier than one where such an idea is anathema?
As this society “freed itself” from the “constraints” of Christianity, and instead mocked the failings of those who declared themselves subject to a law higher than man’s, did the mocking society need more laws or fewer laws to enforce the notion of goodness as the practice of self-discipline shrank?
Funny how the liberal revulsion to the legislating of morality disappears when it is their “morality” being imposed.
I guess the plain language of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” , with establishment being a noun, is beyond their grasp of fundamental English.
And then of course when you throw on the dubious notion that the President can then change the obligation of the citizen(rightfully the purview of legislation) through his own will through executive whim you have the makings of a nascent totalitarian regime.
Obama made it obvious long ago that he was going to wage war against this country’s history, mores and manners. He is doing so by implementing a secular sharia by fiat (notice how close that is to fatwa) and enforcing it with the secular version of the mutawwiin in the guise of a disingenuous media and a mendacious academic elite.
Look at what happened to the Komen foundation when they said they were going to curtail grants to the largest administrators of the liberal sacrament of abortion. The secular mutawwiin went into overdrive to slander and demonize them for, by what all intents and purposes, was purely compliance with their own organizations funding criteria.
The apostate must be killed. But they call us the Taliban.
No wonder “liberals” are so tolerant of Islam they have so much in common.