Showing posts with label religious exceptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious exceptions. Show all posts

Monday, June 30, 2014

Hobby Lobby Wins SCOTUS Decision

It has been a tough week for President Obama at the Supreme Court!  The Obama administration lost 4 out of 5 decisions and 2 were rare 9 to 0 decisions, and today ObamaCare’s loss to Hobby Lobby was added to tally.  However, today’s decision was very narrow and some pro-life and religious groups question whether it was a win in the long run in their battles. You be the judge…

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Attorneys Who Defended Hobby Lobby

Attorneys Who Defended Hobby Lobby Celebrating

American Thinker: Hobby Lobby 1, Obamacare 0

The Supreme Court upheld the religious freedom rights of Hobby Lobby, the closely-held corporation owned by believing Christians who objected to being required to supply the abortion pill to their employees.

Steve Ertelt of Life News reports:

…the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito handed down the decision for the high court, saying, “The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage.”

“HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.

The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to companies. Non-profit groups like Priests for Life and Little Sisters are still waiting for a ruling about their right to opt out of the mandate.

Note that this ruling only applies to closely-held corporations, but does not rule out applying the same religious freedom reasoning to publicly-held firms and nonprofits.

Ed Lasky points out:

The fact that both these decisions [Hobby Lobby and the forced union dues case] were 5-4 points out the danger of Obama picking the next SC Justice with Reid in control of the Senate. If the opportunity present itself, he will abolish the filibuster for SC nominees, too.

Memo.com: The Supreme Court Gets It Right

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has stepped up to defend Americans' most basic freedoms from the full-frontal assault by the rampaging band of leftists running America. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, a Christian business that objected on religious ground to Obamacare's mandate that they must cover certain contraceptives.

Hobby Lobby is among about 50 businesses that have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like Hobby Lobby, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude abortifacients.

Justice Samuel Alito said the decision is limited to contraceptives. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," he said. He suggested two ways the administration could deal with the birth control issue. The government could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the majority, also wrote separately to say the administration can solve its problem easily. "The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it," Kennedy said. He said that arrangement "does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs." Everyone's rights respected and problem solved. Easy peasy.

Of course, Obamacare was never about health care or health insurance. It was only and always about government power and control. Over you. That's what the contraceptive mandate was all about: social engineering, abortion made even easier to get, and with the government holding the strings of control over all of it.

Thank goodness the Supremes ruled on the side of religious liberty. It's about time. But that 5-4 split is too close for comfort. As we head into 2016, don't forget that the Supreme Court---like all of our courts---hangs by a thread, and with it, our most basic freedoms.

Huffington Post:  If Hobby Lobby Wins, Pro-life Christians Lose

We now know with certainty that the Supreme Court will announce its Hobby Lobby decision on Monday. This weekend, the craft and home décor store, along with numerous evangelical institutions that have filed briefs in its support -including my former employer the National Association of Evangelicals--are hoping and praying God will favor them with a whole new expansion of religious freedom and the protection of human life. I'm praying for the opposite.

Along with nearly 50 other for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby is demanding the same religious freedoms and protections that each of us has. Hobby Lobby was not endowed by its Creator with certain unalienable rights. It does not have a soul. It cannot have faith. Yet its owners (and their lawyers) insist that it should not have to comply with the contraceptive coverage requirement in the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. The Obama Administration reasonably granted an opt-out to houses of worship and other religious nonprofits. Hobby Lobby wants similar treatment.

Evangelical intervention on behalf of the multi-billion dollar corporation, which donates generously to their causes, is wrong for many reasons but here are two major ones: If you are pro-religious liberty and pro-life and family, you can't support allowing a for-profit corporation to use religion to deny contraceptive coverage.

First, supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are helping the Christian faith but are actually harming it. In fact, a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby weakens religious freedom.

When anyone can use religion to claim an exemption on anything, religion loses meaning. Rather than a personal belief embedded in our souls, faith would become a set of arbitrary rules any corporation could choose from to skirt the law.

Is this what evangelicalism needs? I spent nearly three decades in governmental relations at the National Association of Evangelicals defending the free-exercise of religion and the right to life, among many other traditional values. Coming to the aid of for-profit corporations who want to ride on the backs of religion is not one of these honored principles.

Indeed, it is a kind of corporatism invading the body of Christ -- concern not for the "least of these" but the richest of those among us. Is this what Christ would do?

When corporations are allowed the same exemptions that have always been reserved just for churches--whether on health benefits, hiring, or land use--those special protections become less clear and more open for interpretation.

If a for-profit corporation is eligible for legal exemptions on grounds of religious freedom, it puts government in charge of deciding what is or isn't religion. You can just imagine the lawyers who will find work forever litigating these claims. I know, from experience, that their concern for what should be "legal" is not the same as what is "spiritual" or truly serves the interests of the Church.

What if a corporation owned by Jehovah Witnesses refuses to cover blood transfusions? If Christian corporations are allowed to use faith to refuse contraception coverage to women who work for them, what's to stop a Christian Scientist business from refusing to cover any health benefits?

Second, the supporters of Hobby Lobby think they are being "pro-life." They are wrong. A massive study conducted in 2012 showed that contraception coverage without a co-pay could dramatically reduce the abortion rate.

That study, conducted by the Washington University School of Medicine, of 10,000 women at-risk for unintended pregnancy found that when given their choice of birth control methods, counseled about their effectiveness, risks, and benefits, with all methods provided at no cost, about 75 percent of women in the study chose the most effective methods: IUDs or implants. Most importantly, as a result, annual abortion rates among study participants dropped up to 80 percent below the national abortion rate.

Well, you might ask, based upon some of the charges being made, aren't the contraceptive methods being funded through the Affordable Care Act, abortifacients? Not if you believe medical science.

In the words of Jeffrey F. Peipert, M.D., Ph.D., the Robert J. Terry Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine, "these contraceptive methods work by preventing pregnancy (fertilization) from occurring in the first place. For instance, the intrauterine device works primarily by preventing fertilization. Plan B (or the progestin-containing, morning-after pill), along with Ella (ulipristal acetate), delay the release of a woman's egg from her ovary. The egg does not get fertilized, which means the woman does not become pregnant."

In sum, Evangelicals supporting Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court are not actually being pro-religious freedom or pro-life. If they win at the Supreme Court, these causes will be damaged in the long run

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Franciscan University of Steubenville drops student health plan over HHS mandate

by Ben Johnson - Tue May 15, 2012 12:51 EST

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.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

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.

Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George has warned all Catholic hospitals will close in two years unless the religious exemption is expanded. Together, the nation’s Catholic hospitals account for 13 percent of the nation’s hospitals.

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.”

HHS mandate could close 13 percent of the nation’s hospitals

Cardinal George: All Catholic hospitals will close in two years under HHS mandate

Sunday, March 25, 2012

The Fluke Thickens… Are Sanger and Fluke Related and Was Rush Right Afterall?

If you are not up on the Sandra Fluke story, check out: Fluke Spin

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER ECONOMIST: Rush Limbaugh Is Right, Sandra Fluke Is A 'Prostitute'

sandra fluke

Courtesy of CSPAN

It has been over a month since Rush Limbaugh first called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute," but the controversy shows no sign of dying down.

Now University of Rochester economist and former Slate blogger Steven Landsburg has jumped to Limbaugh's defense.

In a blog post, Landsburg argued that while the talk radio host's language may have been off-color, Limbaugh's logic was analytically shrewd. Fluke, Landsburg writes, "deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked, and jeered" for saying that women should have access to contraception."

He adds that Limbaugh's demand that Fluke and other Georgetown students post online sex tapes in exchange for contraception was actually a "spot-on analogy":

"If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone else’s sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesn’t actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself."

Unsurprisingly, Landsburg's arguments sparked a mini-firestorm at the University of Rochester, prompting the school's president to issue a public dissent. Landsburg has resoundingly dismissed his critics as "contraceptive sponges," and devoted another blog posts to rebutting their arguments in favor of contraception access.

But Landsburg's focus on the economic benefits and drawbacks of contraception have little to do with Fluke and her congressional testimony. Fluke was not, as Limbaugh and Landsburg have suggested, "demanding" that taxpayers pay for her to have sex; her testimony was originally part of a debate about whether religious institutions should be required to provide access to contraception. Her argument focused primarily on the medical (and non-contraceptive) uses of birth control.

Fluke and Rush

By Grace WylerBusiness Insider

Sandra Fluke’s appearances on-camera thus far, as well as Rush Limbaugh’s well publicized reaction to her Congressional testimony, turned her into a martyr for the Left. But now there are not only holes in her story but she has been connected to White House advisor and former Commincations Director Anita Dunn as well as to leftist Soros sponsored media group, Media Matters.

Bill O'Reilly investigates to find out who is really behind the Sandra Fluke controversy. 'The Factor' discovers the Georgetown law student is being represented by an organization where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director, is the managing editor. He Bill O’Reilly told viewers in a segment with Laura Ingraham that he strongly believes that the White House is “running” Sandra Fluke and has been behind her from the beginning.

And then over the weekend, O’Reilly’s team uncovers that Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend is son of ‘Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl’… My, my, my!

It has become more and more evident that the appearance of Sandra Fluke is no fluke but rather has turned out to be a straw woman for Team Obama and the Progressive left…  She is  connected to Media Matters and the White House and is a professional activist for contraception, abortion and even taxpayer funds for sex change operations. While she is described as a “third year law student” they always conveniently fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

Fluke is really 30-years-old (not the 23 that has been reported), and specifically went to Georgetown to fight their contraception policy – far from the innocent, wide-eyed victim she’s tried to portray herself to be. And Fluke’s testimony for Congress, included precisely zero references to recreational sex or to abortion. Instead, Fluke would have her audience believe she’s only interested in non-sexual reasons for needing contraceptive pills – such as treating ovarian cancer. According to one study, the number of people to whom this applies is about 14 percent of all contraceptive users.

But is this really all Fluke’s agenda is? Based on the affiliations she herself has cited, that question may be more complicated. Near the beginning of her testimony, Fluke said the following (emphasis added):

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

So if Fluke has these sorts of ties to an organization and mentions them by name for the purposes of appreciation, readers will probably assume she supports their agenda.

Now there seems to be increasing speculation that Sandra Fluke might be a great grandchild of Fabian/Progressive Founder of Planned Parenthood and the Negro Project whose beliefs are rooted in eugenics.  The speculation began when someone noticed how much Sanger and Fluke look alike.

Margaret Sanger

Sandra Fluke

Fluke_150x150 B&Wsandra-fluke

Margaret Sanger had 2 sons--Stuart and Grant--still looking into Stuart, but found this death notice for Grant (he was a Dr. and it says that he was survived by his wife, the former Edwina Campbell; three sons, Michael, of Baltimore, Alexander, of Manhattan, and Morgan, of Tortola, British Virgin Islands; a daughter, Anne Sanger of Bozrah, Conn., and 11 grandchildren.

While talking to a friend about the photo likeness and they sent the following info:

KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE SANGER
| Visit Guest Book

SANGER, KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE May 13, 1910 to Sept. 12, 2010 Kathryn died restfully in her sleep in the early morning hours of September 12, 2010. She was one of six children born to Carrie and Loren Fluke on the Kansas Prairie. She moved to San Diego in 1940, where she worked during the War at Convair. She retired from civil service after 20 years. Moved to Valley Center after the passing of her husband, Clarence (Bud) Sanger in 1975. She is preceded in death by son, Jimmy McClish. She is survived by son Gary McClish and daughter Barbara Blind, her brother Loren Fluke, and devoted niece Betty Jacobs; there are eight grandchildren, 10 great-grandchildren and eight great-great-grandchildren, and too many nephews, nieces and stepchildren to count. She was the most caring and loving person and always put the needs of others over her own. She will truly be missed by not only her family, but all those who knew her. Her passion was gardening; her love was deep for her roses, humming birds, and Padres baseball. A Viewing will be on Friday, September 17, 2010, from 5 to 9 p.m., with a Service on Saturday, September 18th, at 11 a.m. at Greenwood Memorial Park. Following the services on Saturday, a celebration of her life will be held at Bayview Molibe Home Park Clubhouse at 2003 Bayview Heights Drive.

Obituary Published in San Diego Union-Tribune on September 16, 2010

Thoughts:  Are "Sanger" and "Fluke" considered typical names? And the fact that they were together is quite a coincidence?  Also, the current Ms. Fluke, her middle name is "Kay", which can be a nickname for "Kathryn". 

Family Genealogy Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~fryeandmecca/Randy%27s%20web%20tree/pafg463.htm#13307

Comment:  And here's where the "out on a limb" kicks in: Margaret Sanger/Margot Sanger--related/coincidence who knows but it sure does peak ones curiosity doesn't it??? TMH from the NoisyRoom

Related: 

Sandra Fluke May Not be a SL*T – But Is She a Liar?

Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

Is This Why Sandra Fluke Went Public?

She-PAC Calls on Bill Burton and the Obama Super Pac to Denounce Misogynist Bill Maher

Sandra Fluke Back In the News

Think for a moment that this White House is not manipulating the discussion or the news?  Check out: E-mails show White House input on Sherrod ouster

You be the judge…

Ask Marion

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday - Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday

Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate ^ | 3/10?/12 | Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate  -  Cross-Posted by John Jansen (March 20, 2012 at 2:05 pm)  -  h/t to MJ

HHS Mandate News and Rally Updates

Notable Speakers to Address March 23 Rallies

microphoneIn addition to the 15 Catholic bishops scheduled to speak at Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom locations, countless other influential speakers from all walks of life will also be addressing rallies throughout the country this Friday, March 23.

The speakers at the more than 130 Rally sites represent a wide array of backgrounds and professions, including members of Congress, physicians, college presidents, pastors, radio hosts, law professors, heads of organizations, publishers, religious sisters, pregnancy resource directors, and rabbis.

The New York City Rally will feature several big names, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and pastoral associate of Priests for Life; Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Philip Reilly, and Mother Mary Agnes Donovan, Superior General of the Sisters of Life.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Father Paul Schenck, Rev. Rob Schenck, and the Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse will address the Rally outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

In addition to the Bishop David Choby, the Nashville Rally will feature Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) and Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Liberty Commission.

The Chicago Rally will feature Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL); Mary FioRito, Executive Assistant to the Archbishop, Archdiocese of Chicago; and Joe Morris, Past President of B’nai B’rith in the Midwest.

Moving over to the West Coast, the San Francisco Rally will feature Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights without Frontiers, Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ of Ignatius Press, and Kevin McGary, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of California.

These are just a few of the hundreds of speakers who will be addressing enthusiastic crowds at Rally sites across the country this Friday, March 23. You won’t want to miss it!

Find the Rally location nearest you here.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

ObamaCare Issues and Options

You knew some religious sects are exempt from the current healthcare bill, right? What's your exemption?

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Onward, He Said, Regardless – Charles Krauthammer

Congress Exempts Amish From Health Care Bill

Published 1, January 18, 2010
There is an interesting controversy brewing over the current version of the health care bill in which Amish families are exempted from the mandatory coverage. Other groups may also receive exemptions.
For some Americans who do not want to pay for health insurance (but face a fine under the law), the exemptions are likely to trigger challenges. Why should an Amish person be allowed exemption, but not someone with political or philosophical opposition to the insurance?

The Amish do use medical facilities and regular doctors, but they pay in cash. They believe that such care is the primary responsibility of their church.

The question is why religious conscientious objectors are given exemptions but not secular conscientious objectors. There are plenty of people who have profound objections to this plan that are not religious based. Is it far to allow only faith-based objectors to get exemptions so that some Christians can apply but not Cato members?
Congress can probably prevail in such distinctions (much like conscientious objectors to the draft), but it raises in my view a legitimate question of fairness.

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/18/congress-exempt-amish-from-hea...

The Healthcare Bill and Its Troubling "Religious Conscience" Exemption

By MARCI A. HAMILTON
Thursday, August 6, 2009

When it comes to H.R. 3200 -- the over-1000-page-long bill to overhaul the American health care system -- there is no question that the devil is in the details. While Americans are trying to absorb the positions taken by each party regarding the big picture issues, such as how "universal" is "universal," and whether it is appropriate to limit care for the elderly, they are being told very little about the interest group deals that have been included in the bill.

The one that most troubles me, setting aside the financial and tax ramifications of the whole structure, is the exemption for "religious conscience" at Part VII, Subpart A, Sec. 59B(c)(5) (on pages 170-171 of the House Draft). Including such an exemption in the bill is both unconstitutional and dangerous for children in faith-healing homes.
A Special Exemption that Unconstitutionally Favors Only Established Religions Such as Christian Science.

The Subpart begins with a requirement that a tax be imposed on any individual who does not satisfy the requirements of the bill to obtain medical coverage. The exemption states, however, that this tax "shall not apply to any individual (and any child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division . . . and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division. . . ."

First, it is not consistent with the First Amendment to grant exemptions solely to "a recognized religious sect" with "established tenets or teachings." If the government can tolerate a religious exemption, then it must do so evenhandedly among religious believers with the same beliefs. This is sheer favoritism for a certain class of religions, or even for one religion.

Although the language is somewhat opaque, there is little question that the Christian Science Church's lobbyists are responsible for this provision. As Malcolm Maclachlan reported in The Capitol Weekly, according to one of the Church's lobbyists, the Church is lobbying across the country to ensure that medical care exemptions based on religion are included in health care reform bills. They succeeded in introducing the similar exemptions in parallel California bills, which ultimately did not pass.

In a previous column, I pointed out how the Church had obtained funds under the Medicare program to cover the costs of faith healers and hospice-like centers where no medical care was provided. Yes, Medicare funds are now being used to cover faith-healing in circumstances where medical care is being rejected. The first version of that law clearly identified Christian Scientists as the recipients of that federal funding. When that aspect of the law became publicly known, however, Congress amended the law to make it more opaque, even though its wording was tailor-made for Christian Scientists. The few constitutional challenges to the Medicare system's payment of religious practice have been rejected in the lower appellate courts, despite the obvious impropriety of Congress' favoritism shown toward a single church and belief system and of funding non-medical care with funds dedicated to medical care.

The Provision Puts Children In Serious Peril – Including Peril of Death
A second important problem with the exemption – and one that is of grave importance – is that it puts children in danger. Health care reform is an opportunity for the United States to turn back the tide on the ability of religious parents to let their children perish or become disabled. The common law rule is that a parent is required to provide a child with adequate medical care, and that rule should be followed. It is beyond disappointing that in 2009, in a federal bill, this basic need of children has been traded away to lobbyists.
Yet the federal government is not alone in ignoring the common law rule. In a significant minority of states, there are faith-healing exemptions from the state's medical neglect laws. In these states, if a child does not receive medical treatment because a parent is a drug addict, then that parent is liable, usually both criminally and civilly. But in a home where the reason for the failure to treat is religious belief, states give the parents a pass on either civil or criminal liability, or on both. These exemptions were secured by the Christian Science Church, and they are the best argument against religious exemptions that exists, for the stakes could not be higher, nor the consequence of the exemption more baleful.

Some readers might discount the likelihood that a faith-healing parent will really watch his or her child die an agonizing death without obtaining help. But it does happen. Consider the recent Neumann jury verdict in Wisconsin, where the parents prayed over their 11-year-old daughter, Madeline, but offered no medical treatment for her diabetes. The result: Madeline died of a completely treatable condition. Were her parents outliers? Not at all: They were accompanied in prayer by fellow believers. No one called 911 until Madeline stopped breathing. Ultimately, a criminal jury found her father guilty, but a guilty verdict cannot bring back a young life.
While adults can legally choose to forego medical treatment and, in effect, choose death, parents may not legally choose death for their children (ergo, the medical neglect laws). The provision of the federal health care bill I have described above, however, implies that it is appropriate that a child receive no medical care at all, so long as the child lives with a parent who believes in faith over medical treatment. That rule goes directly against the common law duty owed by parents to their children, to provide adequate treatment.

Such an exemption also means that the state will have to pay for the treatment of these children. In essence, if the bill is passed with the exemption intact, faith-healing parents would be able to avoid the tax imposed on every other underinsured adult, and then, when their children need medical attention, will still be able to expect the state to pay for their care. The federal government, after all, is exempting them from obtaining the health insurance that presumably will cover everyone else. The defense that they should not have to pay general taxes that contradict their religious beliefs was rejected in 1982, in United States v. Lee, when the Supreme Court held that the Amish must pay Social Security taxes for their employees just as every other employer does, despite their religious objections.

Amid The Controversy Over the Healthcare Bill, We Cannot Forget Children's Lives Are Put in Peril By the Exemption.

The sad truth is that members of Congress either do not know this religious-exemption provision exists within the mammoth health care bill, or else they are willing to pander to a small religious group at the expense of children's well-being.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090806.html

Either way, this grave and important issue is a very good reminder that no one should ever assume that a piece of legislation actually serves the ends at which it is purportedly aimed. It is irrational to believe that permitting faith-healing parents to forego otherwise mandatory medical insurance will contribute to better health in the United States.

Critical Condition

The Reconciliation Diversion [Jeffrey H. Anderson] - March 04, 2010

Whether intentionally or not, the Obama administration has succeeded in distracting many Americans from the main line of attack. At this point, "reconciliation" is but a diversion. The House is the place under assault. And any and all available weaponry, including federal judgeships for one's family, is being brought to bear in the attack.

And this is true… Reconciliation is only a tool for amendments.

Click link for more information: http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/

Savage": Using Exemptions to Win

Please pass this along to all you know. I was listening to Michael Savage tonight. He stated that this health care bill will exempt Christian Scientist and Amish from being subject to health care due to religious freedom. He was talking about how we should all file lawsuits against the government for religious reasons. Quoting from http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=10406

"SO HERE’S MY SUGGESTION: IF THEY CAN MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THESE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, LET’S FIND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS THAT THEY’LL HAVE TO FIND EXCEPTIONS FOR UNTIL THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE EXEMPTED FROM THE SYSTEM, THAT THEY WON’T POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT. LET’S THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES:"

Savage's take is to find some obstacle as it relates to different religious backgrounds that could possible exempt us from this Obamacare. I could not listen to the whole show as I was home and at 9 pm tonight i needed to make dinner, but he was going to take calls as to how we could exempt ourselves based on religious basis. So let's all put our thinking caps, think outside the box and protest and refuse based on religious beliefs. As a network, we can group together by religious types and file class action suits. I say it is worth a shot.

At this point ObamaCare is still short of votes. If they do manage to pass it, the Supreme Court reviews based on unconstitutionality will not be far behind. But that is a very long process and much of the pre-program billing of the taxpayers and hiring of more unnecessary gov’t workers for this program will have started and be costly and then difficult to reverse. In 2012, once Obama is out of office, much of the ObamaCare bill and the 2/3 of related legislation that has already been passed can be over-turned. But in the meantime, we need to do our homework and find and fight all the negative legislation.

But in the meantime, Michael Savage’s exemption program is worth a shot!~

Please keep fighting… contact your own representative and Senators plus the Blue Dogs, fence-sitters, and those that are still wavering. At this moment, nobody believes Pelosi has the votes, no matter what method they use.

75% of the American People do not want this bill…. ObamaCare of any type, yet he is plodding on.

Senators from your State. or Congress.org - Elected Officials

1-202-224-3121- Congressional Switchboard

1-202-225-3121- Congressional Switchboard

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

Related:

2/3 of the HC Bill Passed Already! Hidden in the Stimulus Package that No One in Congress Read…

When There is More Sh_t Than Shinola… It Is Time To Grab a Shovel

John McCain Proposes Natural Supplement Regulation Bill

Doctors Challenging Government Health Care and the AMA

Obama Urges Dems: Pass My Health Bill to Save My Presidency

Read The Full Article and Please Sign Petition