(LifeNews.com)The fact that Tyndale House Publishers, based in Carol Stream, has needed to take a stand in court against ObamaCare’s abortion pill mandate should itself shock most Americans. The publisher simply believes that devout Christians in America are exercising religion when they publish the Bible and give the proceeds to religious charity. But even this idea is now disputed.
The president’s agencies have written rules that render evangelistic publishing of the Bible to be, well, not really religious. To the people who drafted the ObamaCare rule, and its defenders, religion is little more than a target of derision and marginalization.
Tyndale House is a Bible publisher, but the administration believes it shouldn’t qualify for an exemption because it initially earns a profit on its published materials…before directing 97 percent of that profit to non-profit religious charities and causes.
Some advocates for the abortion pill mandate erroneously contend that Tyndale House, instead of the Obama administration, wants the government to pick and choose what is and isn’t truly “religious,” and even to interpret what biblical authors really meant.
This is the opposite of the truth. In America, the burden of proof to violate religious freedom is not on citizens, but on the government. The government needs to stay out of religious gerrymandering and respect free exercise of religion, period.
In the First Amendment, the Founders took for granted that religion exists, and far from ridiculing it, they set up a barrier to protect it. President Bill Clinton and a broad bipartisan majority followed suit when they passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993.
The administration and Tyndale House’s critics are the ones asking for government to decide what the Bible means. The Obama administration has drawn a tiny circle around what it calls “religious employers,” and has left most religious Americans out in the cold. But the government shouldn’t be drawing that line in the first place.
Secularists seem to believe that since courts shouldn’t decide what the Bible means, Christians aren’t allowed to decide either. Instead, the administration forces believers to follow the theological decisions of President Obama and Planned Parenthood.
Nothing could be further from America’s tradition of religious freedom. Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish.
When defenders of the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate wring their hands about the impossibility of respecting varying religions and biblical interpretations, their rhetoric is actually intended to take away from what’s really at stake—the freedom of Americans to live, do business, and serve the community without the government forcing them to violate their conscience.
This is partly what led a Denver federal court to put the mandate on hold for the Newland family, which runs Hercules Industries. The court declared that ObamaCare’s arbitrary rules about who must comply and who gets exceptions “completely undermine” the government’s alleged interest in forcing Christians to violate the biblical respect for life. The mandate forces a wide range of Christians to violate basic, shared tenets of their faith or denomination.
Supporters of the abortion pill mandate are the ones trampling on the First Amendment and religious freedom. They support a scenario where the state simply “defines” most religious believers out of existence. And when a Bible publisher is no longer religious enough to have convictions the law will respect, then the government’s usurpation of religious freedom is well underway.
The penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.
But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.
The Constitution
any tax bills to begin in the House.
The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.
“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.
When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.
The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.
“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.
PLF explained that under the Supreme Court’s decision in June, the Affordable Care Act now charges a “tax” on Americans who fail to buy health insurance.
But Reid introduced the tax plan in the Senate, not the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires for new revenue-raising bills, in Article I, Section 7, the legal team argued.
The plaintiff in the case is Iowa small business owner Matt Sissel, who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own. He objects “on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to be ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of financial penalty.”
“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”
He served in the Army National Guard until 2008 and spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic. He received the Bronze Star and now owns an art business in Iowa City.
“It’s dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.
His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.
The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.
Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and inserted the Obamacare language.
“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”
The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.
The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”
“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”
His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.
But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.
“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”
The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.
In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion” on two conditions.
If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Freedom of Religion is the cornerstone of America. It is the main reason that most of the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries came to America.
Judeo-Christian values were purposely chosen by Thomas Jefferson as a basis for our system of law.
The words or phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, only in a letter between Thomas Jefferson and his cousin and the intent there was that God could and should be part of American laws and lives. It is the government that was to be restricted from interfering with religion. But thanks to the progressive focus to stop teaching history and to using case law instead of Constitutional law, most people don’t even understand the phrase that is being used against them.
Nowhere in the Constitution Does It Talk About Separation of Church and State and the concept was pick up from a letter between Jefferson and a cousin, but the context was changed. The concept was to protect the church from the government, not the government from the church. From: Did You Know? The Founding Fathers and God
You can be religious or not… but abortion is the murder of human beings. If everyone before they had an abortion and everyone who stands back and remains neutral, especially those that believe in God, had to see the graphic photos below or see what their actions and inactions cause(d), abortions would stop.
President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius support late term and partial birth abortions. President Obama voted against legislation when he was a Senator allowing babies who survived abortions from being comforted or helped.
Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.
Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.
Please support the Catholic Groups who are fighting for the First Amendment, for life and for America’s value system.
Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate
More than three dozen Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal courts on Monday challenging the constitutionality of the so-called contraception mandate in President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.
Claiming that their “fundamental rights hang in the balance,” a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate suits against the requirement that employers’ health insurance plans cover birth control. The mandate created a storm of controversy when it came to light as part of Obamacare. The Obama administration softened its position on the mandate several months ago.
"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress — and will keep at it — and there's still no fix," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York. "Time is running out, and our precious ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."
In a statement, the archdioces said: "The Archdiocese of New York has filed this suit because the federal government is requiring religious organizations, under penalty of law, to provide, pay for, and/or facilitate access to services that are contrary to their deeply held and constitutionally-protected religious beliefs."
Obama shifted responsibility for paying for reproductive procedures from religious institutions to health insurance companies. But employees of Catholic institutions will still be able to get contraceptive coverage from their health plans.
A statement from the University of Notre Dame on Monday said the requirement would call on religious-affiliated groups to “facilitate” coverage “for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church."
“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures” and “authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently ‘religious’ to warrant an exemption from the requirement.”
The Archdiocese of Washington also issued a statement reading in part: “Today, the Archdiocese of Washington filed a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) unprecedented mandate dramatically redefining religious ministry and requiring religious organizations to provide coverage for drugs and procedures in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.
“Archbishop Carroll High School, Inc.; Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; the Consortium of Catholic Academies of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.; and The Catholic University of America are also plaintiffs in the same action.
“The archdiocese’s complaint maintains that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment and federal law by forcing the plaintiffs, all Catholic organizations, to sacrifice their beliefs in order to be able to continue their mission of serving all people in need. “Specifically, the suit stems from the mandate’s new definition of what constitutes a religious organization. Contrary to long-standing precedent, the law exempts from the mandate only those religious institutions that primarily serve and employ individuals of their own faith. Any other religious organizations, like Catholic schools, universities, hospitals and charities that serve all individuals regardless of their faith, do not themselves qualify as religious for purposes of the exemption.
“Consequently, the HHS mandate forces these organizations to act in direct violation of their Catholic beliefs.”
Cardinal Wuerl said in the statement that the mandate forces Catholic institutions “to provide coverage for drugs and procedures that we believe are morally wrong.”
Step #1: Count how many of the 14 photos below show babies and how many of the photos show non-babies. Here is the first photo:
So, how many babies vs. Non-babies did you see above? Were they 5 babies vs. 9 non-babies? Were they 8 babies vs. 6 non-babies, 11 babies vs. 3 non-babies ... Or were all of them babies?
"If abortion is murder, why do some Christians defend abortion?" People - Christian or otherwise - who doubt abortion is murder and try to defend it usually do so by redefining murder exceptionally narrowly and/or by claiming that these Bible verses about abortion apply to babies whom they inexplicably declare to be the exceptions to the rule (and self- declaration doesn't necessarily prove a person to be Christian).
The question of whether or not abortion is murder typically leads to asking "when" is abortion murder, which in turn eventually leads to asking what is a baby and what isn't yet a baby, but merely a zygote, an embryo or a fetus.
You most likely have good sense of judgment and perception, so instead of letting other people try to draw conclusions for you, draw your own conclusion on whether or not abortion is murder by using this quick and simple test
Source: God Voter – h/t to George King
Someday, if America and mankind survive, the people of our time will be considered barbarians for allowing abortions to be performed!
STEUBENVILLE, OHIO, May 15, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Catholic religious leaders have warned that religious institutions may be forced to stop providing health care coverage if the Department of Health and Human Services does not change its mandate to provide contraceptives, including abortifacients, as part of their health care plans. Today, the first Catholic university has followed through by dropping its health care plan for students.
The Franciscan University of Steubenville announced it will not furnish students with health care coverage effective this fall, specifically citing the HHS mandate as the reason.
“The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover ‘women’s health services’ including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),” a statement posted on its website states. “Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.
“Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance.”
The rising premiums that attend a greater government role in health care were another reason for the cancellation. “Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future,” the statement said.
The college located in eastern Ohio, which is ranked one of the best private college values by Kiplinger, noted its current student health insurance plan will expire on August 15.
On September 29 the university was one of 18 Catholic colleges to write a letter asking the Obama administration to rewrite the mandate, noting they were “being forced to choose between offering such coverage, paying a fine, or offering no coverage at all.”
An employee of the university, Tom Crowe, wrote his employer’s message was brisk and clear: “We. Will. Not. Comply. And our students are the first one who will feel the pinch.” He added that the university is not self-insuring and would not have been exempt from the mandate, adding such an exemption exists “on paper only.” Catholics universities are not the only religious institutions poised to take drastic action as a result of the Obama administration’s abortifacient decree.
If these hospitals closed it would create a supply shortage, with the likely effect being government programs will be forced to pick up the slack.
South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy said at a House Oversight Hearing on February 16 that closing religious hospitals and schools, or forcing them to end health care coverage, “means government is gonna get bigger, because they’re going to have to fill the void…and maybe that’s what they wanted all along.”
You can’t make this up. Fred Lucas’ report at CNSNEWS.COM reveals how the Liberal Accounting procedures work, i.e., how they figure a program will be paid for: Not your tax dollars, of course.
“Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions… ‘The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,’ Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is ‘down not up.’…”
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Nov. 14, 2011 that $1 billion in health care grants were a way of 'sparking' the U.S. economy. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”
Sebelius took questions from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health about President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."
Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty."
“The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.
The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.
During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.
“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.
Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.
“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.
Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.
“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.
Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”
Murphy again sought clarification.
“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.
Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.
“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.
“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money,” Guthrie added.
Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius answered questions in Congress this week about the left framed ‘contraception compromise’ or the ‘first amendment un-compromise’ as framed by the right.
Sibelius essentially said that the decision has been made and this mandate along with many other surprises for those who did not follow the ObamaCare fight on in August 2013… PERIOD! The decision has been made and will go into affect regardless of the Constitution, religious freedom or what the American people want.
Remember what Nancy Pelosi said… “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in the bill!” Well, you are beginning to find out.
So why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)
Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.
President Obama himself said that he had done the same thing when he was a community organizer. He got leftist priests and nuns in Chicago to compromise the values of the church.
The backlash over Sibelius' interpretation of the mandate built to a crescendo last week. Obama went to the podium and announced a "compromise." It was nocompromise at all ... In reality, Obama’s contraception mandate tramples religious freedom.
This is not an issue that will go away and may haunt the president through the 2012 Election cycle. It is a huge power grab and the first of many frightening realities of the what is really in the ObamaCare Bill. It should be a flag to all concerned Americans that each us needs to read that bill and insist that our Congressman and Senators read it immediately… and act. It should also be a flag to all Americans about the ideology of the President and his team and what is in our future if Obama survives this and is re-elected.
Socialized Medicine, which ObamaCare is, is he crown jewel of socialism… progressivism. It gives the government the control over one sixth of the U.S. Economy and decisions over who get care and who doesn’t, who lives and who dies, and this fight in addition to being a fight over religious freedom and the first amendment, not contraception, is also a fight over what the government can make each of us buy and pay for from here on out.
One of the best explanations of this fight I’ve heard is:
If you are against murder and someone says, “Okay, you don’t have to kill anyone yourself. We will hire someone to kill them for you.”, there is no resolution to the issue. It goes against your values, against God and against everything you stand for. That is exactly what is happening with the birth control mandate being forced on the Catholic Church by the administration and ObamaCare.
Beck Announces ‘We Are All Catholics Now’ Movement to Stand Up for Religious Freedom
The controversy over the Obama administration’s contraception mandate is at a boiling point, as many Catholic leaders continue to view the president’s so-called “accommodation” as a failure to protect religious liberty.
Now, Glenn Beck is coming forward with a new movement called “We Are All Catholics Now.” The main goal of the initiative is to ask Americans to reach out to Congressional leaders (at the moment, Senators) to encourage the passage of legislation that would protect religious groups’ conscience rights.
Watch Beck discuss the effort on his radio show this morning:
The main push, Beck says, is to support the highway transportation bill, which will likely be voted upon this week. It will include an amendment – Blunt Conscience Protection Amendment – from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would protect religious conscience rights. In the House, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) is working on companion legislation, though it may not be voted on for a few weeks.
Beck is encouraging individuals to get involved by calling their Senators and letting them know that “we are all Catholics now.” The issue at hand is not about contraception as it has been framed by many media outlets, he says. Instead, it is a religious freedom issue that hinges upon the separation of church and state’s mandate that the government not force churches to violate their values and principles.
Here are his directions for getting involved and making an impact:
Call the Capitol and speak with your Senator. The numbers are: 202.224.3121; 202.225.3121; the toll free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard include: 1-866-220-0044 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-833-6354, 1-888-355-3588, 1-866-808-0065, 1-877-762-8762, 1-800-862-5530.
Call the switchboard, ask to be connected to a Senator from your specific state (it will take two calls, one for each Senator).
Whoever answers:
1. Tell them that you want to tell the Senator to vote for the Blunt conscience protection amendment. 2. Ask them if they know how the Senator will vote on that amendment 3. Tell them you want to be contacted back about how he voted (be sure to ask for accountability — they hate it, but it makes them call you back). 4. When you call, be sure to tell them “We are all Catholics now”. This key phrase will let them know you are part of a larger, organized movement working in support of religious freedom.
You can read more about the movement at GlennBeck.com.
Sitting in yesterday at GBTV was the co-author for Indivisible talking about the importance of his book as well as Glenn’s book Being George Washington during this pivotal times.
He spoke on the importance of uniting and turning back to God for divine intervention was our only chance to turn our country around.
This is the time to stand-up and choose your side.
Governor Palin appeared on On the Record calling this mandate an ‘Un-American Act’
Add this fight to the expected rise in unemployment (even with the job number game) and possible $5 gas prices at the pump… and this might end up being Obama’s Waterloo! Some believe the timing of this fight is an answer to the prayers for intervention being said daily by many Americans.
This is not a fight over contraception and who will pay for it. It is a fight over religious freedom vs. secularism, a fight over the Constitution vs. Progressivism, a fight over limiting the powers of the commerce clause vs. the government being able to force us to purchase and pay for anything they choose, and the fight over the ideology that will control this country. This is not a fight that anyone can afford to sit out.
On Tuesday — Valentine’s Day — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had a not-so-loving message for President Barack Obama. In an interview with FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren, Palin unleashed on the president’s contraceptive mandate, calling his actions against the Catholic Church “un-American.”
Palin uttered this term, which is bold to attach to any U.S. politician — especially a president — two times during her interview with Van Susteren. The former vice-presidential candidate was clear that she sees Obama’s stance on the mandate as morally, Constitutionally and politically unsound.
“Very poor politics that they would choose such a battle,” Palin said. “One — to pick a fight with faith-filled Americans. You know, we will fight…to the death for our freedom of religion and for the rights that are protected by our United States Constitution.”
Following these remarks, she unleashed her “un-American” label not once, but twice:
“This is an un-American act of our president. Anything that would so blatantly violate an amendment within the United States Constitution is un-American and Barack Obama needs to re-think what he has just done to the people of America because we’re rising up on this one. We‘re not going to back off and we’re not going to say ‘Okay, it is alright that such a violation of conscience — such a violation of those things that our founders fought and died for — we’re just going to sit back and let it happen to us.’ Not this time.”
With all that's going on with the Catholic Church and the President right now, this has become a huge hot button topic. But why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)
Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.
Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.
It is time that people themselves read the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and demand that their Congressman and Senators read it and work to repeal and replace it.
If for no other reason… A vote for any of the 4-GOP candidates, whoever becomes the nominee, will guarantee the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare and removal of the government from our HealthCare! A vote for Obama is a vote for socialized medicine, rationing and a long list of surprises yet to come. 2012 will be the last chance to get rid of ObamaCare because of the way its tentacles will spread.
Jack Lew appeared on Fox with Chris Wallace this morning and said there would be no additional compromise on the mandatory birth control mandate… “We have set out our policy” said Lew.
WALLACE: You say it’s consistent. The Catholic bishops are clearly not satisfied with it — if I may, sir. They have issued a statement that says that they view the decision by the president, the revision, with grave moral concern.
Let’s put up their statement on the screen.
“Today’s proposal involves needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion — government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.”
And, sir, they call on Congress to block the president’s policy.
LEW: No, I think the president’s policy does not do that. It does not force an institution that has religious principle to offer or may for benefits they find objectionable. But it guarantees a woman’s right to access. We think that’s the right solution.
There are others who opposed women’s access to contraception. They have different views than we do. I’m not going to speak to the motives of any of the parties. But it’s quite significant that a range of Catholic organizations has embraced this.
We didn’t expect to get universal support of the bishops or all Catholics. I think that what we have here is a policy that reflects bringing together two very important principles in a way that’s true to the American tradition. And that’s what the president is trying to do.
There are others who want to have a clash over it. We want to bring these two principles together.
WALLACE: But you say you’re not going to get universal support. There are others — this is the conference of Catholic bishops. This is the most powerful statement by the Catholic Church in this country. They deal with grave moral concern and they say it should be turned around.
LEW: I can’t speak to the differences within the Catholic Church.
WALLACE: How do you respond to their statement that this government coercion?
LEW: I would point to the statement put out by the Catholic Health Association, which knows a fair amount about what it requires to health care in this country. They thought this was a very good solution. They understand what the policy is.
WALLACE: So, the bishops –
(CROSSTALK)
LEW: I think our policy is the right policy. I think that there’s broad support, but they’re not universal support for it. And we think this is right way to go.
WALLACE: So, you’re not going to change despite what the bishops say.
LEW: Our policy is clear.
WALLACE: Your policy is clear. Meaning, no revisions to the revisions?
LEW: We have set out our policy.
WALLACE: And that’s it?
LEW: We’re going to finalize it in the final rules. But I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties. And, you know, we think that that’s the right approach.
WALLACE: Mr. Lew, I think it’s fair to say this is precisely why so many people and I understand, you can argue whether it’s the majority or minority — but why so many people are opposed to Obamacare, because they are concerned with the idea that the government can mandate what people have to do, what private businesses have to do, what even religious institutions have to do.
LEW: I think the notion that this is about should we provide basic health care to all Americans is not the issue. You know, there are differences to whether or not the Affordable Care Act is the right approach. We think providing coverage to tens of millions of Americans and making sure that we have a health care system that provides the kind of care that people need that will help drive down the cost of health care in this country is a very important thing.
This is — this question of the impact on religious institutions is something we took very seriously right from the start. That’s why when the policy was announced; we said it would take 13 months to transition it in a way that would be respectful of those differences.
So, I think we’ve addressed that. I think that this concern is one that people can disagree, you know, on the margins about. But we have addressed the core issue — no institution that has, non-profit institution that has religious principles that we violated has to pay for or directly offer these services. But women have access to the kinds of care that they are entitled to.
(If you are not up on this issue… follow the thread here from the bottom up)
Update: Religious organizations are already saying that the Obama’s announced compromise is hollow. Catholic Bishops and other religious organizations are moving forward with their protests. The political fallout from this issue could be huge in the 2012 Election among religious groups and Independents. Remember Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008.
RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here.
Snip
So everywhere I'm reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches -- well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. "What's happened here is that Obama's caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he's gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!"
Snip
Obama is not doing what he's doing to make Barbara Boxer happy or the pro-abortion crowd happy or the Democrat Senate Caucus happy. He knows that's gonna happen. What he's doing is violating the Constitution. He is coalescing extra-constitutional power. He is making a power grab here that is unprecedented in the history of the presidency. (interruption)
Thomas Edsall, that's right. Thomas Edsall wrote that piece in the Nuev Orc Times, former Washington Post columnist. So I don't think... This has been my if you then argument with the Republican establishment from the get-go with Obama. I don't think this is traditional politics at all. I don't think traditional politics has anything to do with why Obama's doing this. This is about fundamentally transforming this country from a representative republic to a pure, straight democracy with the president assuming he's the majority and therefore can do whatever he wants to do. We're not dealing with the average, "Okay, the Democrats won the White House. They're gonna have it for four or eight years. We gotta try to stop 'em however we can and we'll get power back."
There's something unprecedented going on here.
Woodrow Wilson dreamed of this.
FDR dreamed of this.
Obama is doing this.
The White House will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women!!!
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here. Great to have you. It's Friday. Let's go to! JOHNNY DONOVAN: Live from the Left Coast at our satellite studios in Los Angeles,...
WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change...
UPDATE, 12:14p: More evidence the “compromise” stinks: Planned Parenthood likes it. UPDATE, 12:02p: From a House source: This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference. The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway. Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell...
(Reuters) - U.S. health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine. "We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group. "As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process." Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that...
With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Blaze has covered the religious freedom issues surrounding the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate extensively. President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.
Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday. ABC has more regarding what sources are saying the president is poised to present:
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. [...]
One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.
In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception.
The exact nature of the clarification remains unclear, but any accommodation could largely follow what exists in a majority of states, like in Illinois where DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the country, offers an employee health plan that does cover contraception. Georgetown University offers a similar plan.
The shift is aimed at containing the political firestorm that erupted after Obama announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventative care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by Aug. 2013.
Republican leaders and religious groups, especially Roman Catholics, responded with intense outrage, saying the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.
The issue also pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that had been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama‘s health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans’ conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.
Republicans vowed to reverse the president’s policy, with House Speaker John Boehner accusing the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country’s most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals.
The measure also sparked an internal debate at the White House. Vice President Joe Biden, then-chief of staff Bill Daley and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, all Catholics, raised concerns about how the administration proceeded on the policy. On the other side, senior White House advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle, Pete Rouse and David Plouffe argued for the need to ensure coverage for all without exception, as a matter of women’s health and fairness.
The Obama administration clearly underestimated the response it would receive from Catholics and non-Catholics, alike, after implementing a universal mandate on health plans that requires coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
As the Blaze has extensively documented, the response has been swift and hard-hitting. Many liberals who traditionally support these options for women have been jumping ship to side with Catholic leadership in agreement that the administration has overstepped its bounds — an event that so rarely happens in theological and political circles.
But it’s important to note that, despite very boisterous outcries, Obama does have support from some liberals on this issue; many of them are pointing to the fact that nearly all Catholic women use contraceptives as a defense. Using this argument, those who favor the mandate claim that the Church is out of touch and not accurately speaking for its followers on this important women’s health issue.
But is this the proper lens through which to view the issue? Free and religious speech advocates would argue that usage has little to do with views on government intervention in church affairs. In the end, it’s a complicated scenario with political capital for whichever side wins the public over. At the moment, the situation may not be as favorable for Obama as he would like. In an article published on Wednesday, Religion News Service’s David Gibson provides five reasons that the president may be losing the battle.
First, the debate, despite what the mandate’s supporters say, is about religious freedom — not contraception. Regardless of where one stands, the main issue at hand is whether the government has the right to interfere in church affairs and dictate what will be covered in health care plans. Gibson writes:
The bishops don’t have as much credibility with the laity as they used to, thanks to the clergy sex abuse scandal, among other things. But Catholics are still a potent tribe, and if outsiders are seen as attacking the church, Catholics can get defensive – and they can get even.
Then there’s the fact, as mentioned, that some liberal Catholics have abandoned the president on the issue. Regardless of where these individuals stand on use of these health care options, forcing Catholic institutions (among other faith-based groups) to violate their conscience just isn’t sitting right.
Now, let’s talk about those other faith groups. Many times, people of different religious traditions have a tough time coalescing, but on this issue, individuals with varying theological ideals are coming together. After all, it’s one thing to sit back and watch an attack on a rival faith group unfold, but when considering what could happen, should this mandate go unchecked, many religious people are fearful: “What’s next?,” they’re wondering. Gibson continues:
Even though evangelicals and other conservative Protestants generally don’t have religious objections to contraception, they do have a big problem with “big government” and with perceived infringements on religious freedom. Evangelicals – both their leaders and their troops – have never been big Barack Obama supporters anyway, so they were happy to provide any electoral and rhetorical muscle the Catholic hierarchy could not muster.
The fourth reason Gibson highlights is the fact that the “attack on religion” frame the issue is being explored through is an appealing one for Republicans. While many conservatives are wondering why Obama would approach this subject in an election year to begin with, others are noticing just how effective religious freedom rhetoric will be for the GOP nominee.
The rhetoric is already ratcheting up. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier this week.
And, of course, there’s the overwhelming fact that the president will need to secure the Catholic vote to ensure re-election. “While Obama won the overall Catholic vote 54 percent to 46 percent in 2008, he lost the white Catholic vote, 47 percent to 53 percent,” Gibson writes. It‘s hard to imagine the president won’t lose a portion of this important cohort as a result of his refusal, thus far, to compromise.
As GOP Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have both said, “Obama has shown his hand and if he is re-elected, even if they walk this back now, this is the road that his administration will go down!”
Sure, he’s shown “openness” to the ideal of coming up with a viable solution that appeases both sides, but to those so staunchly opposed, such a notion isn’t good enough. The president will need to admit wrongdoing and back away from the mandate, should he wish to appease many of those individuals who feel wronged by the government’s newfound regulations. So far, there’s no evidence that he will take such a course.
Tyndale House is a Bible publisher, but the administration believes it shouldn’t qualify for an exemption because it initially earns a profit on its published materials…before directing 97 percent of that profit to non-profit religious charities and causes.
Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience!
