• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Catholics sue Obama over birth control mandate

Read the thread j. You'll find it.

And no, it's not a false analogy. Both insurance and pay are compensation. Both belong to the employer before given to the employee. Both can be used on things the employer might not believe in. Both are subject to some government requirments. The fact is the two are exactly the same.

And you did cut and paste a definition. However, you still misuse it. Slow down and read: I have never said you argued clergy is being forced to buy BC. I've argued that is the only way it would be a violation against the church. It's a valid and clear point. To be a strawman you have to show that no one has argued the churches rights are being violated. Good luck with that.

And no, there is no debate. Schools and hospitals are not chuches. It isn;'t a matter of opinion. It is a fact.

And j, like I said, the church won't pull out and if they did, they wouold lose far too much. Their congregation, their worshipers, overall who support contraceptions would hold that agsint the church huge. So, they won't pull out.


Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the highest ranking Roman Catholic official in United States, has said that the church faces the dangerous prospect of having to end its services to the poor over the Health and Human Services mandate requiring employers to cover contraception, sterilization and some abortifacient drugs in their health insurance policies.

"If these mandates click in, we're going to find ourselves faced with a terribly difficult decision as to whether or not we can continue to operate. As part of our religion, it's part of our faith that we feed the hungry, that we educate the kids, that we take care of the sick. We'd have to give it up because we're unable to fit the description and the definition of a church given by, guess who? The federal government," Dolan said.

Catholic Church Might End Charity to Poor Over Contraception Mandate


Dear Brother Bishops,

Since we last wrote to you concerning the critical efforts we are undertaking together to protect religious freedom in our beloved country, many of you have requested that we write once more to update you on the situation and to again request the assistance of all the faithful in this important work. We are happy to do so now.

First, we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to you, and to all our sisters and brothers in Christ, for the remarkable witness of our unity in faith and strength of conviction during this past month. We have made our voices heard, and we will not cease from doing so until religious freedom is restored.

As we know, on January 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a decision to issue final regulations that would force practically all employers, including many religious institutions, to pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraception. The regulations would provide no protections for our great institutions—such as Catholic charities, hospitals, and universities—or for the individual faithful in the marketplace. The regulations struck at the heart of our fundamental right to religious liberty, which affects our ability to serve those outside our faith community.

Since January 20, the reaction was immediate and sustained. We came together, joined by people of every creed and political persuasion, to make one thing resoundingly clear: we stand united against any attempt to deny or weaken the right to religious liberty upon which our country was founded.

On Friday, February 10, the Administration issued the final rules. By their very terms, the rules were reaffirmed “without change.” The mandate to provide the illicit services remains. The exceedingly narrow exemption for churches remains. Despite the outcry, all the threats to religious liberty posed by the initial rules remain.

Religious freedom is a fundamental right of all. This right does not depend on any government’s decision to grant it: it is God-given, and just societies recognize and respect its free exercise. The free exercise of religion extends well beyond the freedom of worship. It also forbids government from forcing people or groups to violate their most deeply held religious convictions, and from interfering in the internal affairs of religious organizations.

Recent actions by the Administration have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a “privilege” arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing, extreme form of secularism. The exemption is too narrowly defined, because it does not exempt most non-profit religious employers, the religiously affiliated insurer, the self-insured employer, the for-profit religious employer, or other private businesses owned and operated by people who rightly object to paying for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. And because it is instituted only by executive whim, even this unduly narrow exemption can be taken away easily.

In the United States, religious liberty does not depend on the benevolence of who is regulating us. It is our “first freedom” and respect for it must be broad and inclusive—not narrow and exclusive. Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second class citizens. And it is not for the government to decide which of our ministries is “religious enough” to warrant religious freedom protection.

This is not just about contraception, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilization—although all should recognize the injustices involved in making them part of a universal mandated health care program. It is not about Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. It is about people of faith. This is first and foremost a matter of religious liberty for all. If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end? This violates the constitutional limits on our government, and the basic rights upon which our country was founded.

Much remains to be done. We cannot rest when faced with so grave a threat to the religious liberty for which our parents and grandparents fought. In this moment in history we must work diligently to preserve religious liberty and to remove all threats to the practice of our faith in the public square. This is our heritage as Americans. President Obama should rescind the mandate, or at the very least, provide full and effective measures to protect religious liberty and conscience.

Above all, dear brothers, we rely on the help of the Lord in this important struggle. We all need to act now by contacting our legislators in support of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which can be done through our action alert on Conscience Protection.

We invite you to share the contents of this letter with the faithful of your diocese in whatever form, or by whatever means, you consider most suitable. Let us continue to pray for a quick and complete resolution to this and all threats to religious liberty and the exercise of our faith in our great country.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan
Archbishop of New York
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Most Reverend William E. Lori
Bishop of Bridgeport
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty

The Catholic Key Blog: Cardinal Dolan to Bishops - ‘Where does it end?’

Yeah, keep lying to yourself, just don't expect me to buy it....


j-mac
 
You're easlily impressed by bluster j. It won't happen. Sorry. And like I said before, if it does, they will be marked as assholes and lose membership. Those blogs and remarks from higher ups mean very little. They are just ment to muster the troops. Nothing more.


BTW, the part of mine that you highlight is about another point. Just thought you should know.
 
You're easlily impressed by bluster j. It won't happen. Sorry. And like I said before, if it does, they will be marked as assholes and lose membership. Those blogs and remarks from higher ups mean very little. They are just ment to muster the troops. Nothing more.

I see, so you just hold out your hand, obviously knowing more than Cardinal Dolan about what the inner workings of the Church are, and dismiss it outright as though you are the leader of the Church or something....YOUR OPINION that things like this would never happen, are directly refuted by the words of the leadership of the Church in America, and your answer is to just dismiss it?

You don't have a clue as to what the hell you are talking about.

BTW, the part of mine that you highlight is about another point. Just thought you should know.

BTW, that part....YOU BOLDED! You don't even know what you post? Good God, why waste my time.


j-mac
 
I see, so you just hold out your hand, obviously knowing more than Cardinal Dolan about what the inner workings of the Church are, and dismiss it outright as though you are the leader of the Church or something....YOUR OPINION that things like this would never happen, are directly refuted by the words of the leadership of the Church in America, and your answer is to just dismiss it?

You don't have a clue as to what the hell you are talking about.



BTW, that part....YOU BOLDED! You don't even know what you post? Good God, why waste my time.


j-mac

Yeah, I do use logic better than he is in what you posted. But that's neither here nor there. The fact remains, the is merely spouting off. He is trying to rally the troops. It is unrealistic to believe they would just fold up shop.

As to highlight comment, what I should have said is you only responded to the last sentence and ignored the meat of the post. This part is more important:


And no, it's not a false analogy. Both insurance and pay are compensation. Both belong to the employer before given to the employee. Both can be used on things the employer might not believe in. Both are subject to some government requirments. The fact is the two are exactly the same.

And you did cut and paste a definition. However, you still misuse it. Slow down and read: I have never said you argued clergy is being forced to buy BC. I've argued that is the only way it would be a violation against the church. It's a valid and clear point. To be a strawman you have to show that no one has argued the churches rights are being violated. Good luck with that.

And no, there is no debate. Schools and hospitals are not chuches. It isn;'t a matter of opinion. It is a fact.
 
Personally, I wish the Church WOULD bet out of the Hospital business...they corrupt Medicine. If they run a hospital, I am paying them every time someone on Medicaid/Medicare steps through the door, and the Federal Government is quite obviously subsidizing said Hospital as they do for most.
If the Catholic Church wishes to ignore federal law...it will need to stop accepting Federal funds and turn the Hospital into a Church.
They cannot have it both ways...that is unfair, and unconstitutional.
 
Personally, I wish the Church WOULD bet out of the Hospital business...they corrupt Medicine. If they run a hospital, I am paying them every time someone on Medicaid/Medicare steps through the door, and the Federal Government is quite obviously subsidizing said Hospital as they do for most.

Corrupt medicine? In what way? They provide a service, just as any other medical facility does. Should they be required to provide abortion services, solely because it's legal?
 
Personally, I wish the Church WOULD bet out of the Hospital business...they corrupt Medicine. If they run a hospital, I am paying them every time someone on Medicaid/Medicare steps through the door, and the Federal Government is quite obviously subsidizing said Hospital as they do for most.
If the Catholic Church wishes to ignore federal law...it will need to stop accepting Federal funds and turn the Hospital into a Church.
They cannot have it both ways...that is unfair, and unconstitutional.


Isn't this the same way all hospitals work? Those that can't pay services are treated in emergency rooms and the paying customer gets a % tacked onto their bill to help foot the bill.


In an emergency sitution I'd go to any hospital for help.
 
Corrupt medicine? In what way? They provide a service, just as any other medical facility does. Should they be required to provide abortion services, solely because it's legal?

"When Hospitals and Doctors Play God

Access to reproductive health care is secretly being negotiated away by hospital and HMO executives every day in California and across the country. Overnight, consumers are finding that reproductive health services have disappeared from their community hospitals and health systems. This dismantling of services eliminates access to birth control devices, voluntary sterilization for men and women, the distribution of condoms to combat the spread of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, emergency contraception for rape victims, most fertility treatments and abortion.

In the absence of national health reform, the health care industry is transforming itself. Religiously sponsored health systems are taking over community hospitals and affiliating with nonsectarian health providers at an unprecedented rate. These religious health care giants--eight out of the 13 largest health systems in the country are Catholic--impose the Catholic prohibitions of most reproductive health services on their staff and patients. Advance medical directives and other end-of-life decisions may also be taken out of the hands of patients and their families.

This stealth elimination of services is felt in every aspect of health care delivery. In hospitals, women who want tubal ligations after giving birth are forced to undergo a second procedure at another time and place. Rape victims may be denied emergency contraception; at one hospital, victim advocates who believe a woman should not be compelled to bear a rapist's child are forced to assist women out in the parking lot.

With little warning, employees must go without insurance coverage for these services when the insurer contracts exclusively with a Catholic hospital. Lease restrictions dictate what doctors can and cannot do in their private medical offices. Some doctors are told they should not provide abortions anywhere, even on their own time. Women in managed care plans, including Medi-Cal, may find that these services are geographically unavailable.

Most disturbing, the elimination of these services usually takes communities by surprise. The public is generally aware that Catholic hospitals do not provide abortions, but many people are taken aback by the scope of prohibited services.

These hospital mergers also raise important concerns about the separation of church and state, since billions of government dollars go to institutions that deny women and men a critical aspect of their health care."

When Hospitals and Doctors Play God - Los Angeles Times

This was just attempted in My city....fortunately the Governor stopped it.
 
Last edited:
Corrupt medicine? In what way? They provide a service, just as any other medical facility does. Should they be required to provide abortion services, solely because it's legal?
If they want government money then they need to leave the Bible at the door.
 
Last edited:
If they want government money then they need to leave the Bible at the door.

If the government doesn't want their money going to Church-based hospitals, then I guess they should restrict the insured from seeking care in those facilities. Just because abortion is legal, and the government has deemed that people have a "right" to having their birth control or abortions funded, doesn't imply that Catholic or any other church-based hospital should have to provide those services. It's like saying that a children's hospital must provide services to adults, because adults have rights to health care.
 
If the government doesn't want their money going to Church-based hospitals, then I guess they should restrict the insured from seeking care in those facilities. Just because abortion is legal, and the government has deemed that people have a "right" to having their birth control or abortions funded, doesn't imply that Catholic or any other church-based hospital should have to provide those services. It's like saying that a children's hospital must provide services to adults, because adults have rights to health care.
Well, there lies the problem. Either these hospitals are just plain, old-fashioned non-profits or they're CHURCH. You can't have both. If they're CHURCH then let's call it The Church and stop the government from funding The Church because that's not what OUR government it supposed to be doing.

If it's just a common non-profit then it goes by the exact same rules as all the other non-profits out there and The Church never enters the equation.
 
Last edited:
I see, so you just hold out your hand, obviously knowing more than Cardinal Dolan about what the inner workings of the Church are, and dismiss it outright as though you are the leader of the Church or something....YOUR OPINION that things like this would never happen, are directly refuted by the words of the leadership of the Church in America, and your answer is to just dismiss it?

You don't have a clue as to what the hell you are talking about.



BTW, that part....YOU BOLDED! You don't even know what you post? Good God, why waste my time.


j-mac


May be, that citing Cardinal Dolan on anything to do with morality is a mistake:

Cardinal Authorized Paying Abusers (and lied about it)

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee.

Questioned at the time about the news that one particularly notorious pedophile cleric had been given a “payoff” to leave the priesthood, Cardinal Dolan, then the archbishop, responded that such an inference was “false, preposterous and unjust.”

But a document unearthed during bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and made public by victims’ advocates reveals that the archdiocese did make such payments to multiple accused priests to encourage them to seek dismissal, thereby allowing the church to remove them from the payroll.

A spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed on Wednesday that payments of as much as $20,000 were made to “a handful” of accused priests “as a motivation” not to contest being defrocked.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the Catholic Church holds some 'sins' as being of greater import than others; abortion is evil but raping children is not so bad. Gay marriage goes against centuries of religious teachings but child abuse has been OK for just as long a period.
 
Last edited:
If the government doesn't want their money going to Church-based hospitals, then I guess they should restrict the insured from seeking care in those facilities. Just because abortion is legal, and the government has deemed that people have a "right" to having their birth control or abortions funded, doesn't imply that Catholic or any other church-based hospital should have to provide those services. It's like saying that a children's hospital must provide services to adults, because adults have rights to health care.

Very well said.
 
If the government doesn't want their money going to Church-based hospitals, then I guess they should restrict the insured from seeking care in those facilities. Just because abortion is legal, and the government has deemed that people have a "right" to having their birth control or abortions funded, doesn't imply that Catholic or any other church-based hospital should have to provide those services. It's like saying that a children's hospital must provide services to adults, because adults have rights to health care.

Yeah....let's make this as complicated as we can, add another level of Gov't interference, and tell people where they need to go when sick, injured, and dying.

~or~

Lets simply expect a Hospital to be a Hospital, and a Church to be a Church...thereby avoiding all of this crap.
 
Well, there lies the problem. Either these hospitals are just plain, old-fashioned non-profits or they're CHURCH. You can't have both. If they're CHURCH then let's call it The Church and stop the government from funding The Church because that's not what OUR government it supposed to be doing.

If it's just a common non-profit then it goes by the exact same rules as all the other non-profits out there and The Church never enters the equation.

Not true. The church has been providing medical services and care far longer than any government.
 
If they want government money then they need to leave the Bible at the door.

Agreed. However, once they stop taking government money, realize that they would be under no obligation to provide services they didn't want to, or to provide ANY services to people who were not capable of paying for them; if they so chose.
 
Then can we stop giving money to planned paRentent hoOd as well?
 
Not true. The church has been providing medical services and care far longer than any government.

How is this relevant?

The Church can provide all the medical service they wish...without Gov't being involved at all.

But, that is not the way they wish to play...they want money to help them run a religious institution, which is against the rules. By placing Dogmatic rules upon the public, any Church run Hospital is playing the system...again, pick one as you don't get both.
 
Agreed. However, once they stop taking government money, realize that they would be under no obligation to provide services they didn't want to, or to provide ANY services to people who were not capable of paying for them; if they so chose.

Which allows the people to go elsewhere based on informed consent...and they would.
 
Which allows the people to go elsewhere based on informed consent...and they would.

People would have an option.... Government Care or Moral Care. Personally, I'll take Moral Care every time.
 
Not true. The church has been providing medical services and care far longer than any government.
I'm sorry, I must have worded that poorly because you mid-understood what I was saying.

You can't have both Church and non-profit. Either the institution is a Church and falls under the rules and exceptions governing Churches or it's just one more non-profit organization out there and has nothing to do with the Church, which mean no special exceptions and no special rules.

The government regularly provides money to various non-profits but should not provide money to Churches, because that would violate the separation between Church and State. So the Church needs to decide if it's hospitals are non-profits or if they're Churches.
 
Back
Top Bottom