Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Justice Resolutions - Obama Admin Vs Little Sisters 1-4-2014

Video: Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Justice Resolutions - Obama Admin Vs Little Sisters 1-4-2014

Pirro On Obamacare Contraception Mandate: YOU LIED!

“And yet, you as a former constitutional professor, refuse to exempt them from the contraception mandate. You, the same guy who grants exemptions and waivers left and right to unions, political buddies, bundlers, but not to the women who have devoted their lives to God and caring for the sick?” – Judge Jeanine Pirro

By Caleb Howe

On Fox News’ Justice With Judge Jeanine on Saturday, host Jeanine Pirro in her opening statement addressed the Obamacare contraception mandate and the nuns made famous recently by Justice Sotomayor.

It seems all to obvious, and Pirro puts it in stark terms. But this is a clash of religions and those are rarely settled easily. On one side, the Catholic Church and their fundamental religious objection to providing contraception. On the other, the Liberal Church and their fundamental religious devotion to giving every single living human being on the planet some form of contraception.

The Obamacare acolytes do not care about religious freedom. Well, not Christian religious freedom anyway. It is merely an inconvenient part of American life they tolerate so long as it doesn’t get in their way. But when that free exercise clashes with their fervent devotion to contraception and abortion, you can bet they won’t be willing to budge an inch. Lip service only lasts as long as the lips have nothing to yell about.

Pirro lays the fight right at President Obama’s feet, where it belongs. Here is the transcript of the above clip:

I want a government that respects religious freedom. Mr. President, now that you’re back from your Hawaiian vacation … how’d you hitt them? How’s that handicap? You come back and you try to take away from the Little Sisters of the Poor, a 175-year-old religious organization that cares for low income elderly who are dying, their right to exercise their First Amendment freedom of religion. You promised the Catholic Church you would not, under Obamacare, force those with religious objection to provide contraception to employees, which of course is contrary to their fundamental beliefs and their exercise of their religion.

In spite of your promise, you are spending millions in legal fees to force the Little Sisters of the Poor who spend their lives serving the sick and the elderly to provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients to their employees? Pray tell, Mr. President, might you have lied to the Catholic Church? And now you’re going to court to sanction one home $6,700 a day? What don’t you understand about the Little Sisters of the Poor? Now, I don’t care if you’re pro-choice or pro-life, you have a fundamental right to practice your religion. You have a fundamental right to the First Amendment, freedom of religion.

And yet, you as a former constitutional professor, refuse to exempt them from the contraception mandate. You, the same guy who grants exemptions and waivers left and right to unions, political buddies, bundlers, but not to the women who have devoted their lives to God and caring for the sick? Hell, even a convicted muslim felon in federal prison can exercise their freedom of religion. They can’t be punished for exercising their religion. And you go after these nuns to force them to violate their religion or put them out of business? Am I asking for too much? We’re only talking about your word. Religious freedom, the First Amendment. Mr. President. It’s 2014, and we are not getting off to a good start.

 

Technorati Tags: Little Sisters,New Year's Resolutions

Vatican Court: No Communion For Nancy Pelosi

JoshuaPundit: The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, the highest court at the Vatican has ruled that House minority leader Rep.Nancy Pelosi should not receive communion as a Catholic until she changes her advocacy of abortion on demand.

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal said that Pelosi should be denied communion because she is not in a state of grace.

The Cardinal cites Canon law 915 which states that Catholics who are continue to openly continue “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Burke said Mrs. Pelosi fits the definition.

“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied,” he said, the Western Center for Journalism reported. “This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic.”

“This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must — in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family,” he said.

In other words, Cardinal Burke is calling Rep. Nancy Pelosi a class A hypocrite.

I am not a Catholic, but I can't help but reflect on the justice of this. Not only is Nancy Pelosi an outspoken advocate of abortion on demand, but she also is a strong proponent of taking away the religious freedom of Catholics and Catholic institutions who do follow Church law in this matter by forcing them to subsidize abortions and abortificants under the diktats of ObamaCare. So not only is she involved in what the Catholic Church considers sin itself, but in attempting to force others into sin.

I'm not sure Rep. Pelosi even goes to confession and receives communion, but she has repeatedly referred to herself as a 'devout Catholic'. She's gotten away with that lie for years, unchallenged. This should destroy that, and I would hope that if it continues to persist,the Church would proceed to excommunication.

Technorati Tags: Catholics,Vatican,Nancy Pelosi,abortificants,Rome,Pelosi,religion,Life,Abortion,Choice,Hypocrite,Common Sense,Catholic Church,Excommunication,Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke,ObamaCare,Christianity

Forty Years of Murder in the Womb

By: Arlen Williams - Gulag Bound

Forty years of Roe/Doe and millions and millions of government condoned murders in the womb, bought in part by your money and mine, confiscated by the taxes of tyranny. In the Bible and ancient traditions, forty is the number signifying suffering unto death. People who were scourged were whipped thirty-nine times. Now, it is forty.

Video: “Reclaiming the Human Center of the Abortion Debate,”
SBA List

17 weeks, sucking thumb, ultrasound

This is your country, sovereign Americans. You are our principle leaders. You are accountable to God, for how you participate in our nation of self governance. What are you doing about it?

Alveda King & Frank Pavone: On the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

The year 2013 marks the 40th year since Roe v. Wade (January 22) and the 50th year since the “I Have a Dream Speech” of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (August 28). These two moments in American history have something to say to one another, from completely opposite perspectives.

Roe, inaugurating a sweeping policy about which most Americans are still unaware, declared that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn” [410 U.S. 113, 158]. Dr. King, inaugurating a new season of hope for those fighting for justice, declared, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’” Fifty years after that speech, and 40 years after that decision, a great chasm remains between the dream and its fulfillment in relation to the unborn child. The dream calls for equality, and Roe denies it. As Alveda has asked many times, “How can the dream survive if we murder the children?”

Shortly after we (Fr. Frank and Alveda) began working together full-time at Priests for Life, we were walking together at the annual March for Life in Washington. I (Fr. Frank) turned to Alveda and asked, “Does this remind you of the marches with your Dad and Uncle in the civil rights movement?” Alveda replied, “Fr. Frank, this is the civil rights movement.”

Forty years after Roe, this is a key point to reaffirm. Pro-life progress is slowed when the movement is identified with only one segment of the population, whether that be religiously defined (“It’s a Catholic movement!”), politically defined (“It’s an arm of the Republican party!”), or defined in some other limited way.
But the cause of life is too big for that, too fundamental. The cause of life is so basic, so intrinsically and simply human, that it calls for expression within every sector of society. Protestants and Catholics, Christians and Jews, liberals and conservatives, blacks and whites, should all have their pro-life movements, together creating a harmonious advocacy for the most fundamental human right.

For decades, many leaders and activists have asked, “How do we get the black community more involved in the pro-life movement?” But that is the wrong question. The right question is, “How do we encourage the black community to take ownership of the cause of the unborn?” Such ownership occurs when leaders of the black community itself are the ones calling for pro-life involvement.

That is why Alveda became a full-time Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life (see www.AfricanAmericanOutreach.com). By combining the influence she has in the black community with the outreach of Priests for Life, she has been able to raise awareness about abortion among black leaders and grassroots activists. She has assisted the formation and growth of the National Black Pro-life Coalition (see www.BlackProLifeCoalition.com), comprising many leaders who plan and carry out projects aimed at making the black response to abortion what it should be.

A turning point in this effort was the Pro-life Freedom Rides in 2010. Alveda led the way with this Priests-for-Life project, modeled on the Freedom Rides of the Civil Rights movement. From Birmingham to Atlanta, and from Knoxville to the Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga, these rides were relatively short in distance but powerful in impact, as they took away from the abortion-rights movement the ability to claim that their movement was fueled by the ideals of freedom and equality that Dr. King articulated. And the rides helped to solidify the ongoing collaboration of black leaders in the cause of life.

Out of the Freedom Rides was also born the statement called “The Beloved Community and the Unborn,” a declaration calling for equality and non-violence for the unborn. This declaration was signed and read by Alveda’s mother, Mrs. Naomi Ruth Barber King, on the day of the annual March for Life in January of 2011 in Washington, DC, inside the Capitol building. The statement was also signed by Rev. Derek King (Alveda’s brother), by Gloria Y. Jackson, Esq., great-granddaughter of Booker T. Washington, by Lynne M. Jackson, great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott, and by other black leaders. Moreover, this declaration was placed in the time capsule underneath the new monument to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that was dedicated in Washington, DC on October 16, 2011.

In part, the statement, which you can read in its entirety at AfricanAmericanOutreach.com, declares,

The work of building the Beloved Community is far from finished. . . . In our day, we cannot ignore the discrimination, injustice, and violence that are being inflicted on the youngest and smallest members of the human family, the children in the womb. . . . We declare today that these children too are members of the Beloved Community, that our destiny is linked with theirs, and that therefore they deserve justice, equality, and protection.

Forty years after Roe, therefore, the increasing activism of the black community on behalf of the unborn, with the understanding that this movement is made from the same fabric as the civil rights movement, is one of the most consequential developments. Intimately connected with this development is the increasing chorus of voices of those who have had abortions and testify openly that it did not solve their problems, but only created new ones. Alveda King herself is among those voices who have coalesced into the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (see www.SilentNoMore.com). Alveda explains,

God intervened in my life when I was in my mother’s womb. She desired an abortion and was persuaded to keep me after her mother insisted that they seek counsel from their pastor, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. My Granddaddy told my mother that God had shown him in a dream three years prior that I was “a bright skinned baby girl with bright red hair,” and that I would “be a blessing to many.” Granddaddy King’s prophetic insight saved my life.

On the first anniversary of Roe v. Wade I celebrated my 22nd birthday. I experienced a legal abortion later that same year. I was already post-abortive because a trusted and respected African-American doctor had “played God” in my life in 1970, performing a D&C procedure in his office with only the explanation, “You don’t need another baby. Let’s see.” He made this decision, without my understanding or consent.

The doctor is long since deceased. I wrote him a letter of forgiveness in my life-changing Rachel’s Vineyard healing encounter. My role as a national spokesperson for the Priests for Life-sponsored Silent No More Awareness Campaign is very liberating in that I can turn my tests and abortion trials into a prolife testimony that allows the truth about the harmful impact of abortion and contraceptives on babies, women, fathers, families, and society.

Forty years have passed (see www.Roe vWade40.com). Dr. King asked, “How long?” and answered his own question by declaring, “Not long!” And so must we. No lie can live forever, neither the lie that abortion helps women nor the lie that some human beings are less equal than others. Above all, let this 40th year since Roe renew our confidence in the victory of life!

Dr. Alveda King is Director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life. Fr. Frank Pavone is that organization’s National Director - the Human Life Review

Martin Luther King, Jr. opposed abortion (by Alveda King, by Derrick Evenson).

Technorati Tags: American Stuff,Constitution,History,Politics,Survival,Martin Luther King Jr,Life,abortion,MLK,Alveda King,choices,Planned Parenthood,pro-life,babies are a gift,Roe v. Wade

American Nurses Association Should Not Support Assisted Suicide

The National Association of Pro-life Nurses (NAPN) has responded to ANA’s call for public comments on their proposed document “Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.”

As an organization dedicated to the preservation of ethical standards in the nursing profession, NAPN finds the document an unnecessary change from the current position. While the document makes several good statements regarding respect for the patient, any accommodation to the legalization of assisted suicide/euthanasia has no place in the medical profession. Nurses are healers, not killers, and legalization of the practice will not make it ethical.

The document cites as one resource for their study the pro-euthanasia organization, Compassion in Choices. The use of organizations as resources which have as their primary focus the legalization of these practices does not lend to the credibility of the document. There are other sources for the same statistics that could have been cited.

NAPN notes that the current statement of the ANA position on assisted suicide and euthanasia does not require any revision. Sadly, even that document, which declined to endorse assisted suicide/euthanasia, was not sufficient for the ANA to come to the protection of the life of Terri Schiavo who was not in the process of dying as food and hydration were withdrawn from her in order to assure her death. In their official statement, the ANA sided with the controversial determination that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and as such, the proper decision was reached in the withdrawing of nutrition and hydration based on some unsubstantiated statements she supposedly made regarding the care she would have wanted under such circumstances. The stated position of the ANA does not translate into life-affirming actions on the part of the ANA. The absence of activity to protect the life of patients speaks volumes and it would be naïve to think that the new document would produce any different action on the part of the ANA.

The main objection of NAPN to the document is the lack of any real protection for the conscience rights of nurses. As an organization which has been involved in the defense of exercise of these rights, it is distressing to us that the professional organization which purports to represent nurses has been absent in the defense of these nurses in spite of any platitudes to the contrary. Yes, limits outlined in the document do exist, but it seems unlikely that the ANA will come to the defense of the nurse who declines to participate when it has not done so in the practice of abortion. More than once at the state level where conscience protections were being considered for legislation, the state affiliate of the ANA has testified, not on behalf of the nurses, but on behalf of those who would force them to violate their conscience. Where are the protections for those in the medical profession who would object to participating in the omission of care for Terri Schiavo? The ANA remained silent when President Obama rescinded the conscience protections which were put in place in the waning months of the Bush administration. Such actions lead one to question just who the ANA actually represents.

Lastly, it should be noted that the ANA position of support for the highly politicized Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act further clouds the stated position of the ANA. Support for an act which promotes wholesale practice of abortion and provides for a Patient Advisory Board which would limit treatment is counter to the stated position of the ANA. The ANA cannot have it both ways. You cannot make high minded statements to the public and then act in a manner contradictory to these statements and retain your credibility.

We pro-life nurses feel abandoned with regard to the protection of our conscience rights in the workplace. In spite of the position statement of ANA supporting a nurse’s right to be exempt from participating in procedures which transgress her moral principles, they have been absent in the defense of nurses such as Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo in New York in her dispute with Mt. Sinai Hospital for forcing her to choose between her conscience and her job. They were in absentia in the defense of the twelve nurses in New Jersey who were told they must participate in abortion or lose their jobs. In spite of platitudes in their statement, it has not translated into action. Nurses deserve better representation.

LifeNews Note: Marianne Linane is the Executive Director of the National Association of Pro-life Nurses. She holds a Masters Degree in Bioethics from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.

Technorati Tags: euthanasia,seniors,elderly,watch the other hand,life,pro-life,nurses,eugenics,bioethics,death panels,wake-up America,Catholics,Christians

Obama’s Abortion - HHS Mandate a Full-Fledged War on Religion

(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.

Related:

Catholic Bishop: Vote for Obama “Stretches the Imagination”

Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,abortion,ObamaCare surprises,HHS,Catholics,war on religion,Life,Life is a Gift,pro-life,abortion pill mandate,wake-up America,Wake-up Christians

ObamaCare Disarray as 2013 Nears… Beware!

National arts and crafts retail chain Hobby Lobby is facing backlash after filing a lawsuit opposing the HeathCare Mandate, with the owners claiming that it goes against their Christian Values. (AP)

Fox News:

A Christian-owned chain of hobby shops is facing a bitter backlash after suing the Obama administration over new requirements to provide insured employees with contraceptive and abortion coverage.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby filed the suit Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, alleging that the ObamaCare mandate violates the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The suit followed similar suits by Catholic colleges and a Denver-based company whose owners also objected to the mandate on religious grounds. While a judge has not yet ruled on Hobby Lobby's suit, a Facebook page calling for a boycott of the company, which operates 500 stores in 41 states, has appeared online, and several other forums have featured posts urging customers to steer clear of Hobby Lobby.

“I’m boycotting Hobby Lobby!” reads the heading of one posting on image posting site Flickr. “Even if you're pro-life this kind of action stinks to high heaven! If things like this can be allowed then what's next?!,” the user added.

“They’re being told they have two choices. Either follow their faith and pay the government half-a-billion dollars or give up their beliefs."

- Lori Windham, attorney for Hobby Lobby

Others have taken to social media to protest against Hobby Lobby, with a “Boycott Hobby Lobby” page on Facebook.

“I've been to two Hobby Lobby parking lots today and they were fairly empty. I used to have trouble finding a parking spot!” read one posting from the administrator of the Boycott page. “I think the boycott is catching on! I do not think they are getting the reaction they hoped for.”

Hobby Lobby owner David Green is a devout Baptist who owns one of the world's largest collections of Biblical artifacts. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Green in his suit, argued that compliance with the offending portion of the health care law that the nature of their suit is “would force religiously-motivated business owners like plaintiffs to violate their faith under the threats of millions of dollars in fines.”

Lawyers argued that company employees are well aware of Green's views and their bearing on the company.

“The Green family’s business practices ... reflect their Christian faith in unmistakable and concrete ways,” the complaint states. The company employs full-time chaplains; close all store locations on Sundays and monitors all marketing and operations to make sure that it is consistent with their beliefs.

Failure to comply with the mandate could subject the company to as much as $1.3 million in daily fines, according to Becket Fund attorneys.

"They’re being told they have two choices: Either follow their faith and pay the government half a billion dollars or give up their beliefs," Lori Windham, an attorney from the Becket Fund, told Foxnews.com. "We believe that’s a choice no one should have to make.”

David Green could not be reached for comment, but in a recent USA Today Op-Ed, he blasted the Obama administration for imposing mandates he believes he cannot comply with.

“Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy," Green wrote. "Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right.”

The company does not object to providing coverage that includes birth control pills, but refuses to provide or pay for two specific abortion-inducing drugs such as the so-called "morning after" pill, because Green's "most deeply held religious belief" is that life beginning at conception, the family said in a statement released through its attorneys.

As for the boycott, the company's founders believe customers have the right to vote with their feet.

"The Green family respects every individual's right to free speech and hopes that others will respect their rights also, including the right to live and do business according to their religious beliefs.," the statement said.

Hobby Lobby is believed to be the first non-Catholic company to file an objection to the healthcare mandate. The Newland family, the devoutly Catholic owners of Denver-based Hercules Industries filed a similar suit this past summer and won a court injunction that ruled that they are not obligated to follow the mandate.

“I think the law and precedent set by this case is very strong for Hobby Lobby and the Green Family,” Windham said.

 

ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

Received this from a friend and fellow Classmate of mine. This is his son he's talking about...

Our son was the Radiology Department Director for the largest hospital in Phoenix, for 15 years. Two years ago, a conglomerate, which was taking over hospitals around the country, via hostile buyouts, "acquired" his. The first order of their new business was to remove all the highest paid staff, replacing all with lower paid new hires.

Being of such educated stature, he was able to take his choice of several other hospital employment offers from around the country. He nearly chose Fairbanks but wisely moved just North to Paysen Arizona. Again, Radiology Department Director. Just two years ago, that community facility serving a large area just South of Flagstaff was busy and thriving financially. Today, he is unemployed again! The hospital is losing money in huge amounts. Why? Arizona has been forced to revise it's program for servicing medicare/medicade recipients, cutting care to thousands of low income and elderly patients.

The use of the radiology department's x-ray and other rooms are nearly stilled! This is certainly just one of thousands of medical facilities and doctors that are already feeling the effects of "OBAMACARE"…

ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

By Betsy McCaughey  -  Published September 12, 2012

FoxNews.com

President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been  enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008  show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011  found that heart attack patients  were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more.  For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim.  The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks.   Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients,  but the evidence shows that’s untrue.

Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "Obama Health Law What It Says And How To Overturn It."

Related:

CBO Raises Estimate of Those Hit By Obama Health Care Tax & ObamaCare in Disarray

THIS isn't allowed even on Bourbon Street

There is only one way left to repeal, replace ObamaCare and reform healthcare and that is if we fire Obama in November and Hire Mitt Romney!

Cross-Posted at Ask Marion

Technorati Tags: seniors,Medicare cuts for seniors,wake-up America,wake-up seniors,watch the other hand,ObamaCare,death panels,ObamaTax,ObamaCare mandates,Mitt Romney in 2012,repeal and replace ObamaCare,Fire Obama - Hire Romney,CBO,religion,Hobby Lobby

Suit: Roberts' ruling a poison pill for Obamacare

Calling mandate, penalties a 'tax' creates huge constitutional problem

WND:

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.”

Technorati Tags: abortifacients,ObamaCare,ObamaTax,repeal and replace ObamaCare,taxes,Chief Justice John Roberts,religious freedom,Supreme Court,U.S. Constitution,Constitution,Affordable Care Act taxes,Origination Clause,tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives,H.R. 3590,this version of the ObamaCare bill origiinated in the Senate

HHS mandate loses first test in federal court

Hotair:

Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:12:52 PM by SeekAndFind

Don't get too excited by this court decision, an injunction against the HHS contraception mandate that goes into effect on Wednesday. We've seen other court rulings on ObamaCare go one way, only to be disappointed in the final test at the Supreme Court. Still, I'd rather win the first round than lose it (via The Anchoress):

The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory in their battle to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, a mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Hercules Industries, a Denver-based heating ventilation and air conditioning manufacturer that employs nearly 300 full-time workers, got an injunction in federal court which stops enforcement of the controversial ObamaCare mandate. The company's lawyers said they needed the injunction immediately because if the mandate is enforced, it must begin immediately making changes to its health plan, which renews on November 1st.

The case is similar to ones brought by Catholic-based colleges that have refused to provide employee insurance with such coverage, except this time, it is a secular corporation.

In his order, Colorado District Judge John Kane said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

The injunction only applies to Hercules Industries, not the mandate as a whole, and it's only temporary, as William Jacobson points out at Legal Insurrection. However, the usual paradigms for issuing temporary injunctions are that the judge believes the plaintiffs have a substantial chance of winning the case, and that the regulation or action being halted does significant damage to the plaintiff. That hints at a favorable ruling at the district court level for Hercules, which is definitely good news, as the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the owners of Hercules, proclaimed in its statement:

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business. The mandate could subject the Newlands to millions of dollars in fines per year if they don’t abide by its requirements.

“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The cost of freedom for this family could be millions of dollars per year in fines that will cripple their business if the Obama administration ultimately has its way. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living. Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

In his order, Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. As the Tenth Circuit has noted, ‘there is a strong public interest in the free exercise of religion even where that interest may conflict with [another statutory scheme]….’ Accordingly, the public interest favors entry of an injunction in this case.” Kane explained that the government’s “harm pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.”

According to the brief Alliance Defending Freedom filed along with the motion requesting the injunction, “the mandate disregards religious conscience rights that are enshrined in federal statutory and constitutional law.” It also violates the First Amendment “due to its massive inapplicability and its discrimination among religions,” the brief explains.

The Newlands have to win the case and have it upheld at the appellate level before it has force as a precedent. That seems, though, like a slam-dunk, especially after the very recent Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC that unanimously found a ministerial exception to equal-opportunity laws in religious schools — the very kind of religious organizations that got excluded from the religious exemption by the HHS contraception mandate. The fractious justices united in limiting the application of regulations dealing with federal mandates in what might be considered second-tier religious organizations, and the HHS mandate appears to occupy a very similar relationship as the EEOC issues in Hosana-Tabor. Plus, frankly, the HHS mandate seems flat-out offensive on its face to the First Amendment, which seems to be Judge Kane’s take, at least initially.

This is definitely a good start for those who have demanded respect for freedom of religious practice and expression. But, just as a reminder …

CLICK LINK FOR THE VIDEO

Technorati Tags: Catholic Colleges,Alliance Defending Freedom,ObamaCare court cases,ObamaCare,ObamaCare mandates,individual mandate,HHS,HHS mandates,ObamaCare surprises,EEOC,freedom of religion

Fallen… House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban – White House Agrees and Media is Silent

Have you seen this NASA photo before?  It is real.. a composite of the Helix Nubela taken by the Hubble Telescope, entitled God’s Eye. 
And for most of us it is a reminder that someone is watching…

Most Americans have always thought that our nation, the Founding Fathers and our Constitution were God inspired. 

And many have seen the correlation between our demise and turning our back, as a nation, on God.

House rejects sex-selection abortion ban

GOPUSA:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Thursday fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women's votes.

The legislation would have made it a federal crime to perform or force a woman to undergo a sex-based abortion, a practice most common in some Asian countries where families wanting sons abort female fetuses.

It was a rare social issue to reach the House floor in a year when the economy has dominated the political conversation, and Republicans, besieged by Democratic claims that they are waging a war on women, struck back by trying to depict the vote as a women's rights issue.

"It is violence against women," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., of abortions of female fetuses. "This is the real war on women." (So why aren’t the feminists screaming about this?)

The White House, most Democrats, abortion rights groups and some Asian-American organizations opposed the bill, saying it could lead to racial profiling of Asian-American women and subject doctors who do not report suspected sex-selection abortions to criminal charges.

"The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision," White House spokeswoman Jamie Smith said in a statement. "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way."

The bill had little chance of becoming law. The Democratic-controlled Senate would likely have ignored it, and the House brought it up under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 246-168 - 30 votes short of that majority. Twenty Democrats voted for it, while seven Republicans opposed it.

The bill's author, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said before the vote that regardless of the outcome, the point would be made. "When people vote on this, the world will know where they really stand."

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House's No. 2 Democrat, said he thought the bill was introduced because "somebody decided politically that this was a difficult place to put people in."

The legislation would have made it a federal offense, subject to up to five years in prison, to perform, solicit funds for or coerce a woman into having a sex-selection abortion. Bringing a woman into the country to obtain such an abortion would also be punishable by up to five years in prison. While doctors would not have an affirmative responsibility to ask a woman her motivations for an abortion, health workers could be imprisoned for up to a year for not reporting known or suspected violations of the ban on sex-based abortions.

An earlier version of the bill also made it illegal to abort a fetus based on race.

"We are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way," said Franks, who has also collided with abortion-rights groups recently over a bill he supports to ban abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Franks and others say there is evidence of sex-selection abortions in the United States among certain ethnic groups from countries where there is a traditional preference for sons. The bill notes that while the United States has no federal law against such abortions, countries such as India and China, where the practice has contributed to lopsided boy-girl ratios, have enacted bans on the practice.

Lawmakers "who recently have embraced the contrived political rhetoric asserting that they are resisting the artificial `war on women', created by Team Obama for political purposes for his upcoming election bid, must reflect on whether they now wish to be recorded as being defenders of the real escalating war on baby girls," said National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson. (Let us remember that both President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius have always supported late term and partial birth abortions.  Senator Obama even voted against giving the tiny survivors or abortions comfort after the procedure, which is barbaric!)

His group, in a letter to lawmakers, said there are credible estimates that 160 million women and girls are missing from the world due to sex selection.

But the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that favors abortion rights, said evidence of sex selection in the United States is limited and inconclusive. It said that while there is census data showing some evidence of son preference among Chinese-, Indian- and Korean-American families when older children are daughters, the overall U.S. sex ratio at birth in 2005 was 105 boys to 100 girls, "squarely within biologically normal parameters."

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said that while her group has long opposed reproductive coercion, "the Franks bill exploits the very real problem of sex discrimination and gender inequity while failing to offer any genuine solutions that would eliminate disparities in health care access and information."

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said the bill fosters discrimination by "subjecting women from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds to additional scrutiny about their decision to terminate a pregnancy."

"Doctors would be forced to police their patients, read their minds and conceal information from them," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Republicans also used the bill to continue their ongoing criticism of Planned Parenthood, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger who endorsed abortion for racial purification, citing a video taken by the group Live Action purporting to show a Planned Parenthood social worker advising a woman on how to determine if her fetus was female before she terminated the pregnancy.

h/t Jim Abrams, June 1, 2012 6:50 am

The passing of this anti-sex-selection abortion law would have been more symbolic than anything else, for nobody would have gone into a clinic and said we want to terminate this pregnancy because of the gender of the fetus, especially after the law passed.  As Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends said: “Who would ever have thought that America, the United States, would need a law like this?”  But with the surfacing of now several videos showing that this despicable practice was not just an isolated incident and now the fact that Congress could/would not pass a bill banning gender selection abortion coupled with progressive politicians trying to turn this “real” ‘war on woman’ into a political shame… we sadly see that we definitely need this law!  After this vote we can no longer call the practices of China barbaric; we have defined our own culture as the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way!  We have fallen a long way from the the God fearing people that founded our country!

As the polls indicate, pro-choice Americans are at record low and partial birth abortions and gender selection is unthinkable to most Americans; plus the Catholic Church has brought suit against the Obama Conception Mandate of ObamaCare… yet unless you watch Fox news, participate in the conservative blogosphere or perhaps receive a publication for your church, synagogue or a pro-life group you probably don’t know about any of this.  the media is silent… blacked out in support of President Obama and his administration.  This alone should be a huge flag of how they will handle the news between now and election and worry us all… blacked out news, distortion of their opponents and issues they oppose and slanted favorable news of Obama and Progressive candidates and issues… sounds a whole lot more like the USSR vs. the USA.

What we are is God's gift to us.  What we become is our gift to God.

Many feel he United States has fallen from grace… You be the Judge!

Related:

New Live Action video shows Planned Parenthood encouraging gender-selective abortion, Medicaid fraud

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate – ‘Pro-Choice’ Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds

America Solidly Now “Pro-Life”

Many ask themselves how we got here…  When is the last time you took your kids and grandkids to church?  Are they teaching from scripture there?  And how can a modern translation of the Bible, The Voice Bible (Paperback: The Voice New Testament), that changes the nouns for God, Jesus Christ and angels to Eternal One, the Anointed One and a messenger of God and then offers a “watered down” version of the Gospel.  Was it T.S. Eliot who said the less people read the Bible the more they translate it?”  He also said something like ‘Watered down Christianity is worth nothing.’

Technorati Tags: Planned Parenthood,abortions,sex-selective abortion,China,God,fallen,culture,Founding Fathers,Constitution,erosion of culture,Catholic Church,Catholics,media blackout,media bias,Bible,Christians,people of faith,manipulation of the public,Margaret Sanger

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate

A few facts:

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.

Let’s ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book “Women and the New Race“, what the purpose of birth control is:(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.

And let us not forget who is behind ObamaCare, the contraception mandate and forcing taxpayers to pay for contraception & abortions, as well as Catholic and other religious hospitals and facilities to provide these products and services (against their beliefs and consciences)  … Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sibelius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

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.

Just last month, Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl told Newsmax.TV, “This is the invasion of our religious freedom by a government mandate.”

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.”

© 2012 Newsmax

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?

Abortions, including early abortions and grotesque partial birth abortions, as well as the cold-blooded born alive abortions, all of which President Obama supports, violate clear Bible verses against them.

"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!

 

Technorati Tags: abortion,pro-life,contraception mandate,ObamaCare,partial birth abortions,Catholics sue,Catholic hospitals,abortions