Obama Steps In It with Catholics

Can anybody defend the Obamacare provision that forces Catholic hospitals and healthcare orgs to provide free birth control to its employees - in direct violation of their fundamental religious beliefs? Sounds like a bonehead move to me - 1 out of 4 voters are Catholic, besides the obvious Constitutional issues.

no way are 1 outta 4 voters catholic. that can't be true. not that many catholics out there. all those schools shutting down. nah i don't believe it.

no way wrote:

no way are 1 outta 4 voters catholic. that can't be true. not that many catholics out there. all those schools shutting down. nah i don't believe it.

The schools shutting down have nothing to do with the number of Catholics in the country. Besides that? The fact that this is in direct conflict with the Constitution has no bearing with you? The man is trashing the very foundation of what he swore to uphold and serve. He should be jailed and you deserve everything you are about to get, should he succeed.

According to a new 2011 study by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, "The US Catholic population is currently 77.7 million."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...

That's one BIG voting bloc that he just pissed off.

Inquiring Mind wrote:

Can anybody defend the Obamacare provision that forces Catholic hospitals and healthcare orgs to provide free birth control to its employees - in direct violation of their fundamental religious beliefs? Sounds like a bonehead move to me - 1 out of 4 voters are Catholic,.

there are several problems to consider.
For example could a Muslim or Jewish group deny porcine heart valves for their workers?
Could a Hindu organization deny bovine based insulin?
Could a Jehovah's Witness group deny coverage for blood transfusions?
If i start a church of MR Magoo (remember the cartoon) as a religion can i exclude eyeglass coverage to my workers?
So that would be one set of problems.
Granted they are extreme examples but where does the line get drawn?
I prefer to use the church of Magoo(as far as i know it does not exist) as i respect that a persons religion is an important issue and i do not want to say any religious institution noted above is wrong or right in their opinion on the questions i have posted.
the left leaning NY Times opinion piece brings up another point.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/...
"These institutions, as well as Catholic universities – not seminaries, but colleges and universities whose doors are open to all – are full participants in the public square, receiving a steady stream of federal dollars. They assert – indeed, have earned – the right to the same benefits that flow to their secular peers. What they now claim is a right to special treatment: to conscience that trumps law."
" The regulation doesn’t require anyone to use birth control. It exempts any religious employer that primarily hires and serves its own faithful, the same exclusion offered by New York and California from the contraception mandate in state insurance laws.(Of the other states that require such coverage, 15 offer a broader opt-out provision, while eight provide no exemption at all.)"
As to the court
"In a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court disagreed. Even a sincere religious motivation, in the absence of some special circumstance like proof of government animus, does not merit exemption from a “valid and neutral law of general applicability,” the court held. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion, which was joined by, among others, the notoriously left wing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist."
The issue is for the people who work for those institutions who are not clergy.
It is more a issue of labor law.
If i am a worker at a Catholic university i should not have to adopt to my employer's religious views to be a groundskeeper for example.
As to politics it is a mixed bag.
The issue can be settled so that the Church can exclude their religious members from the rule which has not be settled yet.
Also the more the republicans make noise about outlawing contraception, that will cause them problems with the general population particularly women.
So the spin from the left will want to paint the right as anti-women and they may be able to sell it that way.
The religious right has tried on a state level to restrict birth control and have suffered defeat for their trouble.
If the republican's are not careful they could be branded as against birth control which would drive the women's vote straight to the democrats.
So it may be a baited issue for the republicans to latch onto which may hurt them in the election time ahead not just for President but Congress as well.
If the republicans overreach they will hurt themselves on this issue.
IMO i believe that some of the rabid right will go too far and alienate the general population of women and suffer the consequences.
The moderate republicans will try to focus on the religious right and get them to come out and vote.
Which would be an advantage for the republican party.
From a political point of view it is a toss up as to which party would garner more votes.

Inquiring Mind wrote:

Can.

there are several problems to consider.
For example could a Muslim or Jewish group deny porcine heart valves for their workers?
Could a Hindu organization deny bovine based insulin?
Could a Jehovah's Witness group deny coverage for blood transfusions?

If i start a church of MR Magoo (remember the cartoon) as a religion can i exclude eyeglass coverage to my workers?

So that would be one set of problems.
Granted they are extreme examples but where does the line get drawn?
I prefer to use the church of Magoo(as far as i know it does not exist) as i respect that a persons religion is an important issue and i do not want to say any religious institution noted above is wrong or right in their opinion on the questions i have posted.

the left leaning NY Times opinion piece brings up another point.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/...

"These institutions, as well as Catholic universities – not seminaries, but colleges and universities whose doors are open to all – are full participants in the public square, receiving a steady stream of federal dollars. They assert – indeed, have earned – the right to the same benefits that flow to their secular peers. What they now claim is a right to special treatment: to conscience that trumps law."

" The regulation doesn’t require anyone to use birth control. It exempts any religious employer that primarily hires and serves its own faithful, the same exclusion offered by New York and California from the contraception mandate in state insurance laws.(Of the other states that require such coverage, 15 offer a broader opt-out provision, while eight provide no exemption at all.)"

As to the court

"In a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court disagreed. Even a sincere religious motivation, in the absence of some special circumstance like proof of government animus, does not merit exemption from a “valid and neutral law of general applicability,” the court held. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion, which was joined by, among others, the notoriously left wing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist."

The issue is for the people who work for those institutions who are not clergy.
It is more a issue of labor law.
If i am a worker at a Catholic university i should not have to adopt to my employer's religious views to be a groundskeeper for example.

As to politics it is a mixed bag.
The issue can be settled so that the Church can exclude their religious members from the rule which has not be settled yet.
Also the more the republicans make noise about outlawing contraception, that will cause them problems with the general population particularly women.
So the spin from the left will want to paint the right as anti-women and they may be able to sell it that way.
The religious right has tried on a state level to restrict birth control and have suffered defeat for their trouble.
If the republican's are not careful they could be branded as against birth control which would drive the women's vote straight to the democrats.
So it may be a baited issue for the republicans to latch onto which may hurt them in the election time ahead not just for President but Congress as well.
If the republicans overreach they will hurt themselves on this issue.
IMO i believe that some of the rabid right will go too far and alienate the general population of women and suffer the consequences.
The moderate republicans will try to focus on the religious right and get them to come out and vote.
Which would be an advantage for the republican party.
From a political point of view it is a toss up as to which party would garner more votes.

Very well thought out, researched and written with FACTS, but the right wingers will trash it anyway! OBAMA 2012!

sorry about the extra post.
sometimes topix does not update quickly and it appears the post did not go thru

dbar wrote:

<quoted text>
there are several problems to consider.
For example could a Muslim or Jewish group deny porcine heart valves for their workers?
Could a Hindu organization deny bovine based insulin?
Could a Jehovah's Witness group deny coverage for blood transfusions?
If i start a church of MR Magoo (remember the cartoon) as a religion can i exclude eyeglass coverage to my workers?
So that would be one set of problems.
Granted they are extreme examples but where does the line get drawn?

As usual, Dbar. A well thought-out response, but also well off the mark. It doesn't matter what religion the govt is interfering with - it is unconstitutional as long as the practice does not conflict with US laws. Anyone who needs porcine heart valves or bovine insulin, etc. is free to go to a secular hospital. Similarly, any employee at a Catholic hospital is free to go to Planned Parenthood or other organizations to obtain birth control and contraceptive aids, generally available at little or no charge.

It is beyond ludicrous that the federal govt can use the separation of church and state doctrine to prohibit Christmas manger displays in public schools, yet claim a right to force a private religious institution to violate a sacred principle. Where is the ACLU on this? Even Biden and other Dems in Congress think this is a bad idea, politically and ideologically. I predict this will be "walked back" in spite of pressure from left-wing nutjobs like Barbara Boxer.

Inquiring Mind wrote:

<quoted text>
As usual, Dbar. A well thought-out response, but also well off the mark. It doesn't matter what religion the govt is interfering with - it is unconstitutional as long as the practice does not conflict with US laws. Anyone who needs porcine heart valves or bovine insulin, etc. is free to go to a secular hospital. Similarly, any employee at a Catholic hospital is free to go to Planned Parenthood or other organizations to obtain birth control and contraceptive aids, generally available at little or no charge.
It is beyond ludicrous that the federal govt can use the separation of church and state doctrine to prohibit Christmas manger displays in public schools, yet claim a right to force a private religious institution to violate a sacred principle. Where is the ACLU on this? Even Biden and other Dems in Congress think this is a bad idea, politically and ideologically. I predict this will be "walked back" in spite of pressure from left-wing nutjobs like Barbara Boxer.

So for example i work as a Catholic (a valet say)for a Muslim hospital that denies coverage for my health need for a porcine heart valve based on their objection not mine.
So i am the one who is having his rights infringed upon.
I agree that a secular hospital is the proper course.
However who pays for it--me?
And if i do i am not getting equal treatment.
If they do they are violating their beliefs.
So it is a problem depending how you look at it.
Watching TV at noon has the admin shifting the cost to the insurance company itself which would eliminate the pain for both sides.

While i don't totaly agree with the Presidents compromise, i think it is a good thing. Maybe the republican/teabaggers will look at this and say "wow that is the way our fore fathers set up this government, to talk and come up with a compromise when the two sides dissagree". OBAMA 2012!

dbar wrote:

<quoted text>
So for example i work as a Catholic (a valet say)for a Muslim hospital that denies coverage for my health need for a porcine heart valve based on their objection not mine.
So i am the one who is having his rights infringed upon.
I agree that a secular hospital is the proper course.
However who pays for it--me?
And if i do i am not getting equal treatment.
If they do they are violating their beliefs.
So it is a problem depending how you look at it.
Watching TV at noon has the admin shifting the cost to the insurance company itself which would eliminate the pain for both sides.

The answer to "who pays for it?" is the people paying the premiums. If the govt wants the money to come directly from a third-party, reimbursing the employee's out-of-pocket expenses, that would be fine. If the church has to be involved in any way, either administratively or financially, I believe it is still an infringement. BTW, I don't believe anyone has a "right" to free birth control...or porcine heart valves for that matter.

notoorangeman wrote:

While i don't totaly agree with the Presidents compromise, i think it is a good thing. Maybe the republican/teabaggers will look at this and say "wow that is the way our fore fathers set up this government, to talk and come up with a compromise when the two sides dissagree". OBAMA 2012!

I tend to think that the democrats did make a mistake.they could have handled the issue and avoided the hubbub.
However it is possible that they wanted to get a message to all women in the US that the republicans want to take away their right to birth control.
Whether that is the true or not--- it is the message that women will get and remember.
It will make it easier to attack any republican presidential candidates as being on the side of the religious right.
That will make it harder for "newt romney" to attract independent women voters to support him.
And the democrats were not going to receive many votes from the fundamental religious groups anyway so the potential downside is not much of a cost.
In all due honesty i do not think they are that Machiavellian.
But then again politics is a dirty business.

notoorangeman wrote:

While i don't totaly agree with the Presidents compromise, i think it is a good thing. Maybe the republican/teabaggers will look at this and say "wow that is the way our fore fathers set up this government, to talk and come up with a compromise when the two sides dissagree". OBAMA 2012!

I don't know what the Tea Party has to do with this, bozo, but you just can't help embarrassing yourself, can you? Punctuation and grammar aside, your illiteracy is on proud display:

Totaly? Fore fathers? dissagree? You could at least have someone else proof your posts before you hit the send key.

BTW, when you pass a bill into law that you havent' read and then try to impose one of its unconstitutional provisions on a group of 44 million voters, only to be forced to walk it back - that's not a compromise. That's political expediency, and that's how Obama makes all his "compromises." First, it's "my way or the highway" (elections have consequences) and then when he backs off, he takes credit for the compromise. Sorry for using big words, maybe someone can explain it to you during story time.

dbar wrote:

<quoted text>
I tend to think that the democrats did make a mistake.they could have handled the issue and avoided the hubbub.
However it is possible that they wanted to get a message to all women in the US that the republicans want to take away their right to birth control.
Whether that is the true or not--- it is the message that women will get and remember.
It will make it easier to attack any republican presidential candidates as being on the side of the religious right.
That will make it harder for "newt romney" to attract independent women voters to support him.
And the democrats were not going to receive many votes from the fundamental religious groups anyway so the potential downside is not much of a cost.
In all due honesty i do not think they are that Machiavellian.
But then again politics is a dirty business.

If that was their intent (to disparage Republicans), they really made a mistake. This isn't about the "evangelical voters." Catholic Democrats played a huge role in electing Obama, but this move angered many more than just Catholics. It was an affront to every religion. Playing the "women's rights" card may work with liberals, but they won't vote Republican anyway. Independent women voters tend to be wary of extremism in either party. The overreach of the Democrats in this case is clear; making it seem like Republicans just want to restrict a woman's reproductive rights is a stretch. There is no Republican birth control pushback outside of the church employee issue (with the exception of govt-paid abortions).

The difference is is that a heart valve is necessary for the person to sustain life. There is nothing life sustaining about an abortion except for the rare case that it will endanger the womans life at which point the situation should be re thought.

Maybe Obama will mandate you to get a brain.

notoorangeman wrote:

While i don't totaly agree with the Presidents compromise, i think it is a good thing. Maybe the republican/teabaggers will look at this and say "wow that is the way our fore fathers set up this government, to talk and come up with a compromise when the two sides dissagree". OBAMA 2012!

You think this is abhorrent?

Guns are next, you watch.

Remember, he stated clearly why he detests people clinging to, guns and bibles. The slippery slope against religion has been in action for a while now but just now popped into the public eye. Fast and furious was an attempt to show how evil defending yourself with a gun is, but blew up in his face.

He’s handling both issues by ignoring us and the constitution.

Are you libtards out there REALLY going to keep supporting this fascist?

Inquiring Mind wrote:

<quoted text>
If that was their intent (to disparage Republicans), they really made a mistake. This isn't about the "evangelical voters." Catholic Democrats played a huge role in electing Obama, but this move angered many more than just Catholics. It was an affront to every religion. Playing the "women's rights" card may work with liberals, but they won't vote Republican anyway. Independent women voters tend to be wary of extremism in either party. The overreach of the Democrats in this case is clear; making it seem like Republicans just want to restrict a woman's reproductive rights is a stretch. There is no Republican birth control pushback outside of the church employee issue (with the exception of govt-paid abortions).

You think of abortion as a form of birth control?

JJJ wrote:

<quoted text>You think of abortion as a form of birth control?

Some people believe the "morning after" pill to be a form of abortion. It's not necessarily my view.