What is the uproar between Obama, birth control, and the Church?

I truly don't understand the uproar regarding birth control, the Catholic Church, Barry Obama and his executive order regarding insurance.

It is my understanding that Prez. Obama issued an executive order that enforces part of ObamaCare that says health insurance companies must offer “preventive services” for free and that includes birth control?

And the Catholic Church does not feel that they should offer free birth control based on their moral beliefs?

So, in a nutshell, Barry Obama is forcing private insurance companies to pay for a legal prescription drug or device and that prescription drug or device be offered to any employee of a private company even if that drug or device directly conflicts with the moral beliefs of the employing company?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Its not only the Catholic Church...but the Christian Church as a whole that opposes birth control. You are correct...basically Obama first tried to force it through the taxpayers...(includes Christians) but when he saw the backlash (evidence the majority of this country is still moral and Christian despite media telling us we are a secular society) he did a back door trick and put it through the insurance companies. Hence, Christians still end up paying for something they dont believe in.

Of course, if this society followed Christian values...there would be no need for birth control because sex would wait until marriage....of course,...there would also be no murders, stealing, etc...but why would we want to be Jesus Freaks and live in a place where you love your neighbor as yourself and you could actually trust people. Silly Rabbits....Wait for it.....Wait for it....Wait for it.....AND NOW THE REPLY FROM SOMEONE WHO CITES THE ONE RARE EXCEPTION...

back up a little and maybe do some "googling" on this topic. You have mistakenly combined HHS Sebelius ruling from her office that religious organizations that offer health insurance to their employees MUST cover several reproductive items - INCLUDING the drug that causes abortions "the morning after".... with Obama's more recent CYNICAL attempt to say, he will change the HHS ruling to make the insurance companies foot the bill for these items that violate the religious freedom guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution.

I don't think there was any "Executive Order" involved. Had there been from the outset, the uproar would have been twice as loud and furious. No - he tried to hide behind Sebelius' skirts on this attack on religious freedom and it backfired big time. So he then tried a CYNICAL maneuver by going on TV and pretending to offer a compromise by saying religious institutions (like Catholic hospitals) won't have to pay directly for these items that violate religious conscience. He will MANDATE that the insurance companies pay for the Catholic and other religious employees' so-called "reproductive" items.

He isn't fooling anybody - not Catholics, not Evangelical Christians, and not Muslims. Maybe your confusion on this is due to the deceptive way this is being framed by the mainstream media. Here is an ACLJ article that also explains the uproar:

http://aclj.org/us-constitution/senator-rubio-defends-religious-rights-a...

For me personally (an Evangelical Christian), I "got it" the minute it was announced on tv. I didn't believe for half a second that this was Sebelius idea. This was an assault on religious liberty that could have only emanated from the White House. And it was screamingly obvious that by covering the "morning after" ABORTION PILL, that the Administration thought they had found a clever way to force Catholics in particular - as well as others of various faiths - to have dead baby blood on their hands. Once you force Catholics, who stand on the front lines against killing the unborn - once you force THEM to participate with their money in killing babies, they then have literal blood on their hands. Catholics get this, Evangelicals get this, Muslims get this. THAT's what the uproar is about.

We have a Catholic hospital system in this community second to none in the U.S. Many women use Catholic hospitals, whether Catholic or not, because abortions are not performed in Catholic hospitals. Some poor women choose these institutions for births, because they know they will not be pressured to have their tubes tied.

BO thought he would get away with something

Why did this come up now? It was in the Bill that we had to wait for Nancy Pelosi to pass before we could find out what was in it.
Well, she passed it, this was in it and it has been law since Obama signed it.

And the Administration was kind enough to extend compliance of the mandate for a year.

"In a concession, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul."
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/21/obama-administration-religious-emp...

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

There are LOTS of oppressive aspects to this Obamacare monstrosity legislation - that Republicans promise to repeal after the November elections. Thank the Lord!

BO said after the 2010 election rebuke to his power-grabbing policies that he knew he had been "shellacked" in the election. AND YET, to the utter astonishment of a majority of the American public (IMHO) he doesn't seem to have understood that election at all. And then - during another election year, he ignites a firestorm with this CYNICAL ploy to smooch up to the pro-abortion crowd. The immoral crowd that has nowhere else to go but to vote for him.

And this cynical guy is supposed to be "smart"?

"Smart" isn't the correct adjective. It is "driven". When he says fundamental changes are coming to American Society, he means every single word of it. Fasten your seat belts, we're in for a bumpy ride!

And the Catholic Church does not feel that they should offer free birth control based on their moral beliefs?

Not unless The Pope changes his mind.

So, in a nutshell, Barry Obama is forcing private insurance companies to pay for a legal prescription drug or device and that prescription drug or device be offered to any employee of a private company even if that drug or device directly conflicts with the moral beliefs of the employing company?

I think that's right, but like most law these days I think the phrase "it depends..." enters into it.

So, if you're right, that's a good thing. Henry VIII understood the Catholic church a lot better than we do today, and he knew how to deal with it. We could still learn a thing or two from good old Henry.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I think what confused me is, does the Democrat party lead by Baraq Hussain Osama the Golfer-In-Chief have the power to over ride the moral beliefs of an organized religion in spite of the 1st Amendment?

And, if forcing insurance companies to offer free birth control in spite of that insurance company's client and that client's belief system, would it be fair to say that this Healthcare Abortion of Obamacare is actually a takeover of the insurance industry?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

...does the Democrat party...have the power to over ride the moral beliefs of an organized religion...

Of course not. No political party has that authority, and in point of fact political parties have very little authority.

The President of the United States has the authority via executive order to accomplish certain things. In this case The Anointed One has stated that insurance companies must offer birth control, no matter what the moral beliefs of the company or individual are.

For whatever reason, the Holy Catholic Empire (HCE) doesn't like that and, because the HCE doesn't have the authority it used to, it can do nothing except perform the time honored traditional ceremony of Raising Hell.

See?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I think you are right on target with your statement," insurance companies must offer birth control, no matter what the moral beliefs of the company or individual are."

So, to stay consistent, the Empty Suit needs to keep moral beliefs out of ALL Prescription coverage for ALL insurance companies in ALL states.

So, if I live in California and I have a legal prescription from a Doctor registered in the state of California for medical marijuana, the Obama Mandate MUST also mean insurance companies that you and I pay premiums to will have to purchase weed for someone with a prescription for it.

HOW TO GET RE-ELECTED IF YOU ARE AN EMPTY SUIT, ILLEGITMATE SON OF A FOREIGNER, SOCIALIST PINKO GOLFER-IN-CHIEF!

FREE WEED FOR EVERYONE! AND INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO PURCHASE IT FOR YOU!

And keep your morals out of my drug coverage!

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Look LibsCanBlowMe, if The Anointed One started giving away free weed even one such as I would vote for him. Shoot, I'd vote for him twice if I could get free weed out of the deal. I'd stay so screwed up I wouldn't care about anything!

Except more free weed, of course...

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

From what I remember, back in 2010 when people were protesting in front or Smarmy Kapturs office downtown, the Chosen One promised to sign an Executive Order saying that the healthcare take-over wouldn't force insurance companies to cover abortions and birth control.

Smarmy Kaptur hid behind that sham as a big win that allowed her to keep going to church without being escorted to the door by the priest. She claimed it was some sort of big win bla bla bla but the rest of us knew that it was a smoke-screen to help her get re-elected. Some of us know how government works and this Executive Order by Barak Hussain was just a sham.

Now that Smarmy won, the Executive Order is getting thrown out. Again, those of us who know how government works knew this was coming.

So, why is it a problem for the religious people? Forcing morals, or in this case a lack of morals, on people is what Democrats do. Now it is a surprise?

Or is it that morals should be kept out of the healthcare law?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

You are correct LCBM. This is a reversal from the administrations position that they would sign an executive order to change the law as it was written which was part of the compromise with the Stupak-led Dems to get the law passed without reconciliation (because with Scott Brown's election they couldn't reconcile it and get around a GOP filibuster).

But as a Republican enjoy it. It's brining Social issues back into the election, of which the President doesn't do well, and he's alienating a key demographic - hispanics.

Most of the latin world is Catholic, it is the only growing part of the Catholic Church. The letter from the bishops IS A BIG DEAL to them.

Additionally, it affects the blue collar Catholics of the Rust Belt (primarily the Steel towns of PA). If this issue remains it will split the normally reliable Dem union vote in Ohio and PA (most likely just depress turnout) and could put the hispanics of three key Western states (NM, NV, and CO) all of which have growing hispanic and Catholic populations.

MikeyA

I can only hope that Republicans run on an anti-birth control platform. This is a BIG looser for Republicans. I'm can't think of any of my Catholic friends who don't use birth control. I'm also liking that Rick Santorum is having his turn at being the non-Romney. Nothing will bring in the women vote than telling them they aren't emotionally strong enough to serve in combat, but are strong enough to have to have their rapist’s baby… You go Rick!

Because of course, rape is such a HUGE reason that women have abortions today...

http://realweb.ifastnet.com/stats.html

I can only hope that the President doubles down on that.

There is a reason many Dems are not walking away BUT RUNNING from his decision.

MikeyA

The White House has already caved, and churches or charities that have a religious objection will not have to pay for the cost or provide contraceptives.

Pink Slip

Spoken like a true invertebrate. This decision should show both parties just what the jellyfish living in the double-wide parked at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is made of, and the really sad part is that no one will notice.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

And the bishops have already rejected it because providing the coverage is still mandatory and goes against church doctrine so the church is faced with 1) paying for coverage that provides techniques that go against church teaching or 2) don't provide coverage at all and pay a penalty.

Looks like he'll have to cave in some more.

MikeyA

"so the church is faced with 1) paying for coverage that provides techniques that go against church teaching or 2) don't provide coverage at all and pay a penalty."

The church wouldn't be paying for providing any contraceptives. They wouldn't be involved at all. At this point, they're just bitching.

Pink Slip

Yes they would have to pay for it. Because the insurance company is required to provide it.

So unless birth control suddenly became free it will need to be paid for.

But I'll tell you what. I'll support this if you will agree to support public schools teaching creationism. Deal? They both would be gov't imposing beliefs upon a populace that doesn't agree with it.

MikeyA

Providing contraceptives saves insurance companies money down the road. So in that sense, yes it's free

Pink Slip

Actually no it's not.

As the feminists were quick to point out during this debate contraceptives are not JUST used to prevent birth.

For instance, a very good friend of mine in college used condoms as her primary means of contraception yet used birth control to limit her menstral cycle because of the sports she played. Note it was used for convenience, not health or to prevent a birth.

Now how, in that instance, is the use of birth control saving the insurance company money? It's not. So again the company line is ruined by feminists who want their cake and to eat it too.

MikeyA

So if one person uses pills or medication in unintended ways, that makes that medication useless for others?? That's pretty silly.

I've also know women who used contraceptives to treat endometriosis. It wasn't used to prevent births, but it did help prevent more surgeries. It saved money.

Pink Slip

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.