White House: Contraception insurance mandate is not up for debate

posted at 6:35 pm on February 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

White House press secretary Jay Carney made no bones about it in today’s press conference: The administration’s decision to require religiously-affiliated employers to provide their employees with insurance coverage that covers contraception — even if the employers oppose contraceptives on religious grounds — is final.

The White House said Thursday it has no plans to reverse course on its decision to require that all employers cover contraception in their insurance plans, despite a wave of criticism from Republicans and Catholic leaders.

After a bruising week for health officials on the issue, the White House arranged a conference call with reporters to address what it called “confusion” over the policy. It also put up a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, director of the House Domestic Policy Council, pointing out that “no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception” and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

You can bet this wouldn’t be so cut-and-dried if the political calculus didn’t work out so perfectly in Barack Obama’s favor. The president thinks he can afford to thumb his nose not only at Catholic voters but at any voters concerned by the president’s perpetual power grabs because women and young voters will make up for their loss.

But anybody who opposes Obamacare ought to oppose this requirement on all of the same grounds. We don’t even have to talk about the religious liberty angle of this. It will, for example, bump insurance prices even higher. Why should folks who have no need of contraception whatsoever — gay couples, for example — have to pay for coverage that includes it? As Ed has pointed out, contraception is elective. That fact alone ought to rule it out as a required coverage area.

But add to that the religious liberty element and it becomes increasingly clear that this is not about contraception. The president cares far less about whether women have access to the pill than he does about whether (a) they vote for him and (b) he’s able to define what constitutes a religious institution. Unfortunately for the president, “women and young voters” are far less attached to this provision — especially given that contraception is already cheaply available — than Catholics and others are to their liberty.  This issue isn’t going away for the president; it too clearly reveals his indifference to those he thinks he doesn’t need.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Socratease on February 2, 2012 at 7:27 PM

It always has been, but they are unprepared for the shock a 15% reduction in beds would cause to American society. I am from Britain so I have a personal nightmare with the NHS. I am not too sure that Americans would peacefully wait more than a year for a routine operation or sit by quietly when the government declines a $20,000 operation to save their 23 year-old daughter, who was in perfect health only weeks ago. I think that there would be blood in the streets…or in the voting booth, at least.

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Can someone tell me how the bishops would be in any position to ignore the law? Do they think they can coerce the insurers to not cover birth control?

The Count on February 2, 2012 at 7:34 PM

On my old insurance plan, I had a four day window to pick up my prescription. And I was not allowed any other option.

peachaeo on February 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM

But you can buy condoms over the counter.

John the Libertarian on February 2, 2012 at 7:34 PM

On my old insurance plan, I had a four day window to pick up my prescription. And I was not allowed any other option.

peachaeo on February 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM

If this was the pill, perhaps they were trying to force you into keeping the rhythm of the cycle? Four days seems pretty tight.

John the Libertarian on February 2, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I personally want anal-bleaching to be covered.

I don’t even know what that IS…

Dirty Creature on February 2, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Can someone tell me how the bishops would be in any position to ignore the law? Do they think they can coerce the insurers to not cover birth control?

They go to insurers that don’t cover contraception in the plans.

But the government says they can’t do that anymore.

The coercion here is by Washington.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM

The vast majority of Catholic voters don’t follow the Church’s teaching on contraception, so they probably won’t be offended in the least.

The number of Catholics who might pick and choose which teachings of the church they will follow and who decide to live outside of the state of grace is inconsequential. Although I agree that this my enter into Obama’s calculation, like with everything else, pandering to the lower nature of people.

neuquenguy on February 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM

This is insane. There was no need for the government to change this.

It wasn’t broken.

The White House is looking for a fight. This is all politics.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:39 PM

The vast majority of Catholic voters don’t follow the Church’s teaching on contraception, so they probably won’t be offended in the least.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is the state telling a religion that it must violate its teachings.

I’m against the Catholic Church’s teachings on this but I’m not in favor of the government telling them they can’t practice those teachings.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Honest question- Do you think a fundamental mosque would actually hire a woman?

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Mosques and other jihad orgs do hire women these days.
They hire muslimas who are born and educated here and have the right accent, know the right people, look harmless even in a hijab/niqab/burka and are media savvy and can spin for their cause .
They send out these women to do their ‘PR’ work, specially in local media and work with local politician’s office/campaign/outreach .

burrata on February 2, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I think that there would be blood in the streets…or in the voting booth, at least.

I would have thought the same of the British. Two generations of living under socialism changes a people.

Socratease on February 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Jay Carney should have just come out, for his little Contraception conference, wearing a condom on his head. He would have been multi-messaging!

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2012 at 6:49 PM

For Carney that would be an improvement.

bw222 on February 2, 2012 at 7:51 PM

First they came for the Catholics…

d1carter on February 2, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Obama has recently launched a very public campaign to encourage a public perception that his faith means a great deal to him. How this squares with the fact that he chose not to attend services except on rare occasion, albeit, generally only as he was attempting to enlist the aid of the religious community in passing some piece of legislation, over the last three years is unclear. However, this carefully crafted image is not going to counter the reality that his administration is denying others their religious freedom and the ability to conduct themselves according to their conscience in this nation.

It is a breach of individual religious freedom to force those who don’t believe that the use of contraceptive or abortion is morally acceptable to participate in programs or services related to those issues. It is also similarly a breach of religious freedom to extract tax dollars from those same individuals who have moral, or, more precisely, conscientious objections to being in any way involved with said services, and use those tax dollars to cover those services, thus making the unwilling tax payer complicit in providing those services.

thatsafactjack on February 2, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Socratease on February 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM

It’s been more than two generations. The welfare state in Britain predates WWII and the NHS was birthed out of the ruins of the last war. You are correct, however, that living under socialism changes people, which is why I became an American. My point is that Americans are not used to waiting. They get angry if they have to wait two minutes to get their burgers in the drive-thrus. How long did it take before New Orleans devolved into Lord of the Flies after Katrina? Now, imagine millions of people being told they are just going to have to wait a year or so for that heart surgery they need.

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Religious liberty according to Korbe: the freedom to force other people to follow your religion.

RightOFLeft on February 2, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Yet Obama has no problem exempting Muslims from ObamaCare on religious grounds.

bw222 on February 2, 2012 at 7:54 PM

But that’s not the issue. The issue is the state telling a religion that it must violate its teachings.

I’m against the Catholic Church’s teachings on this but I’m not in favor of the government telling them they can’t practice those teachings.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 7:40 PM

I hear you, but I can see the other side too — the Church operating as a church doesn’t have to follow the rule, but when the Church operates a business, employing and serving non-Catholics, it has to follow the rule like any other employer. It’s similar to the problems the Church is having when it runs adoption agencies in states that allow gay couple to adopt. Looking at the numbers of Catholics who rely on contraception, I honestly can’t get too worked up about it, since non-use of contraception is obviously not a sacredly held belief.

cam2 on February 2, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Barry and Company are finally coming to the realization that ‘they’ve stepped in it BIG time’.

When this happens, the first response is BLUSTER.

GarandFan on February 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM

And now the SCOTUS has another reason, a 1st Amendment reason which they so dearly love, to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional and throw the whole thing out! Religious freedom, ya’know.

Who is John Galt on February 2, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Yet Obama has no problem exempting Muslims from ObamaCare on religious grounds.

bw222 on February 2, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I’m sorry to say I hadn’t heard this, I try to keep up.

Linky? If so, this is gonna really blow up in his face.

Who is John Galt on February 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Yet Obama has no problem exempting Muslims from ObamaCare on religious grounds.

bw222 on February 2, 2012 at 7:54 PM

link?? don’t doubt it, but just want the link for the memory file…

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 8:03 PM

The Count on February 2, 2012 at 7:34 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-is-the-anti-obama-administration-letter-that-was-read-to-almost-every-catholic-sitting-in-church-today-2012-1?op=1

They will drop insurance coverage for everyone of their employees.

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM

but when the Church operates a business, employing and serving non-Catholics

Agreed, but this isn’t a “business” they’re operating. It’s a charity hospital that takes in sick people.

They’re not making money here.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM

every one.

man, I hate colds

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I’m sorry to say I hadn’t heard this, I try to keep up.

Linky? If so, this is gonna really blow up in his face.

Who is John Galt on February 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Muslims are equating insurance with gambling , which is haraam in islam.
Hence muslims will be exempt , but they will be eligible to use taxpayer funded healthcare .
Google ” jaazia” tax
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/amish_muslims_to_be_excused_fr.html

burrata on February 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM

n so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/here-is-the-anti-obama-administration-letter-that-was-read-to-almost-every-catholic-sitting-in-church-today-2012-1?op=1#ixzz1lHDt7sQv

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 2, 2012 at 8:10 PM

So I guess there is really no difference between Romney and Obama on this, in fact Romney might be worse on the issue.

neuquenguy on February 2, 2012 at 8:11 PM

How well do you think the idea that their coverage might be dropped, due to Obama, is going over at Notre Dame right now?

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 2, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Can someone tell me how the bishops would be in any position to ignore the law? Do they think they can coerce the insurers to not cover birth control?

The Count

The first question I have is is this actually a law? Did congress write a bill requiring contraception that was signed by Obama? As I understand it, they didn’t.

Having said that, no one should get an exception. If non-Catholic businesses can have their liberty infringed, so can Catholic businesses. Non-religious businesses don’t have less freedom than religious businesses. The correct response is no one should be forced to do this, religious or not.

xblade on February 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I’m Catholic. The Catholic bishops are finally talking openly about public policy as it affects matters of faith. So are the priests. We’ve finally heard it from the pulpit and in public statements from the bishops.

To their dismay, the clergy is discovering that some Catholics object to the perceived partisanship. For some Catholics, partisanship and ideology come before conscience. It serves the clergy right for some of their previous dabbling in politics and public policy that were truly matters of opinion and not faith. In this, they need to examine their past behavior. They also need to do a much better job of teaching the laity about their obligations and priorities as Christians.

On the other hand, our parish priests received ovations when they finally discussed the Obamacare mandate last week. Active Catholics who place Christian faith over politics will and are taking notice. Perhaps some of those who conveniently overlooked these issues have now been put on notice by both Obama and the Church. You can be a Catholic and a political liberal and still have very strong objections to this governmental intrusion into matters of faith.

Who knows how this will effect the majority of Catholics? As with much of the world, we’ve been secularized and many Catholics are Catholic in name only. However, it’s good to see Catholic bishops fighting the good fight. Perhaps this will lead our country to finally re-examine the unconstitutional rules in place to prevent preachers from preaching their faith in the public arena.

obladioblada on February 2, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Having said that, no one should get an exception. If non-Catholic businesses can have their liberty infringed, so can Catholic businesses. Non-religious businesses don’t have less freedom than religious businesses. The correct response is no one should be forced to do this, religious or not.

xblade on February 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Bingo!!!

obladioblada on February 2, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Religion – birth control

My mother worked at a Catholic hospital for 30 years.

None of my 3 children were born there even though we lived in the same town.

My mother called the taxi and took me across town to another hospital for the birth of my 1st child.

The Catholic Hospital quit delivering children because they would be forced to perform abortions if they did.

I am not a Catholic but I support the Catholic Church and others in this fight not to provide the coverage required by the health care bill.

Joy

DarrelsJoy on February 2, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I personally want anal-bleaching to be covered.

I don’t even know what that IS…

Dirty Creature on February 2, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Well then, you are a dirty creature! :)

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Not up for debate? Then neither are my tax dollars, butt crumb.

waterytart on February 2, 2012 at 8:31 PM

From Obamacare:

RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION — Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

Since corporations have had personhood rights since 1819 and have had 14th Amendment, Equal Protection rights since 1886, it would appear that the Catholic Church and other businesses owned by religious organisations, individuals, charities, etc., such as the Amish, the Mennonites, the Anabaptists, and the pet religionists of the day, Muslims, they can all claim religion conscience exemptions.

I guess that Sebelius and the WH haven’t yet to read Obamacare to find out what is in it.

Resist We Much on February 2, 2012 at 8:31 PM

What next, Pork being a mandated choice a Jewish cafeterias? Muslim? Why are Amish exempt but not Catholics? Amish do not have topuechaseinsurance whatsoever under Obamacare. Frankly, after the recent decision by the Supreme Court stating essentially that religious organization can discriminate with respect to their elected leaders, I do not see how this too is not clearly unconstitutional. Let us pray (no pun intended), that the individual mandate will be voided and this will all become moot.

mouell on February 2, 2012 at 8:32 PM

You’d think nan piglosi would be against this considering she’s a catholic, I’m surprised she didn’t fight for her religion. /

angrymike on February 2, 2012 at 8:33 PM

And yet most Catholics vote Democrat.

You reap what you sew, suckers.

(Still looking forward to them totally losing it over this for mostly the wrong reasons).

CorporatePiggy on February 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Barry why you’re at it can you repeal the tax exempt status for all evil scum bag religions?

Your Mamma loves me on February 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Obama does not do liberty.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 2, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Obama does not do liberty.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 2, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Can’t even define the word, unless it’s in his missing Harvard papers and transcripts.

Folks, we are being sold down the river a Trillion$ per mile. It’s time to get VERY busy and ROCK the Government/Media complex that thinks they have us under control.

Who is John Galt on February 2, 2012 at 8:56 PM

A ‘limited Federal Government’. At what point does the Government’s reach become limited, your Honor?

HopeHeFails on February 2, 2012 at 9:08 PM

xblade on February 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

No law had to be passed. Obamacare gave Secretary of HHS near blanket power to do anything. Scary huh?

txhsmom on February 2, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Let me guess, Obama did this because of Jesus Christ, right?

txhsmom on February 2, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Agreed, but this isn’t a “business” they’re operating. It’s a charity hospital that takes in sick people.

They’re not making money here.

SteveMG on February 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM

A non-profit corporation is still a corporation…
To quote xblade:

If non-Catholic businesses can have their liberty infringed, so can Catholic businesses.

(and yes, I’m a Catholic).

cam2 on February 2, 2012 at 9:14 PM

I’m sorry to say I hadn’t heard this, I try to keep up.

Linky? If so, this is gonna really blow up in his face.

Who is John Galt on February 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM

the Amish are already exempt. The got their lobbyists on it from the get go. Prolly the first group to get exempted.

AH_C on February 2, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Last I heard, in a republic, political decisions are always up for debate. Seems our so called Constitutionalists zero didn’t pick up on that distinction. No surprise, since he was teaching his students how the Marxist constitution is better than ours.

AH_C on February 2, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Honestly, as a cradle Catholic that has spent most of her adult life working as an educator in Catholic schools, I see this as a way for Catholic schools, churches and organizations to relieve themselves of the burden of paying the cost of healthcare for their employees. A $2000 penalty is a lot cheaper than $10-15,000 per employee healthcare plan they are currently paying. Now they are vindicated if they say…we won’t pay it, go join a state co-op. They are off the hook and look good at the same time.

Just watch how this plays out.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:19 PM

You are actually comparing apples to oranges.. Anti-Depressants are a necessary medical treatment. Not providing contraception has never harmed anyone medically. You can’t get a cheap alternative over the counter for depression whereas condoms are readily available.

melle1228 on February 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

The issue raised by the bishops isn’t the effectiveness of the drug but rather a moral objection.

OptionsTrader on February 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Obama WANTS the Catholic Church to decline to give their employees health insurance so those people will be forced into government health programs.

Montjoie on February 2, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You know, I ain’t even remotely religious. You might even say that I’m an atheist, except for that I don’t even care enough about the matter to analyze myself, let alone anyone else, over the matter.

But some analysis about this says to me, how is it that a perfectly fertile woman has a health concern? Isn’t that an indicator of optimal health? And I have to pay to prevent that state in in women who are utter strangers to me? What I mean is, how is it that I am suppose to pay for some woman’s contraception that I’m not… well, you know. And the prevention of pregnancy seems to me to be the opposite of health care… but I gotta pay for your good time… hmm.

Facetiousness aside, you know, sometimes when you over-reach somebody will come along and cut your fingers off. Or did the Obama administration just miss the news about Komen and PP?

M240H on February 2, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Obama WANTS the Catholic Church to decline to give their employees health insurance so those people will be forced into government health programs.

Yes and the Catholic hierarchy wants that too…

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Honestly, as a cradle Catholic that has spent most of her adult life working as an educator in Catholic schools, I see this as a way for Catholic schools, churches and organizations to relieve themselves of the burden of paying the cost of healthcare for their employees. A $2000 penalty is a lot cheaper than $10-15,000 per employee healthcare plan they are currently paying. Now they are vindicated if they say…we won’t pay it, go join a state co-op. They are off the hook and look good at the same time.

Just watch how this plays out.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Whoa. Cynical. Plausible? yes. cynical, definitely. Too bad you don’t work for CNN. seriously.

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 9:36 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-is-the-anti-obama-administration-letter-that-was-read-to-almost-every-catholic-sitting-in-church-today-2012-1?op=1

They will drop insurance coverage for everyone of their employees.

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 2, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Yes, this was read at mass last Sunday. I wonder if Pelosi & Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor were there to hear it?

redridinghood on February 2, 2012 at 9:42 PM

<blockquote Yes and the Catholic hierarchy wants that too…

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Are you really stupid enough.to think that absorbing millions of people into “mandated” coverage , increasing what is covered, and adding a layer of bureacracy to all of that is going to result in reduced costs for anyone, including employers the size of the church?

Because if you are that stupid, you need to be removed from the gene pool right now.

M240H on February 2, 2012 at 9:43 PM

the Amish are already exempt. The got their lobbyists on it from the get go. Prolly the first group to get exempted.

Yeah, the Catholic lobby is the second, only they don’t wanna be exempted because it will be cheaper for them to bail on all their employees.

American Catholic Leadership is SO in bed with the Democrats in Washington.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Because if you are that stupid, you need to be removed from the gene pool right now.

M240H on February 2, 2012 at 9:43 PM

0
whoa cynical. plausible? yes. cynical, definitely. :-)

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Are you really stupid enough.to think that absorbing millions of people into “mandated” coverage , increasing what is covered, and adding a layer of bureacracy to all of that is going to result in reduced costs for anyone, including employers the size of the church? Because if you are that stupid, you need to be removed from the gene pool right now.

Dude,chill, I’m on your side! Re-read my post and have another glass of vino, I think you need it!

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Whoa. Cynical. Plausible? yes. cynical, definitely. Too bad you don’t work for CNN. seriously.

You work for the church for 20 years and then tell me I’m cynical.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:53 PM

It also put up a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, director of the House Domestic Policy Council, pointing out that “no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception”

So… when did health insurers ever prescribe treatment?

and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

As if anyone thought this was an issue. Yet.

Unjust laws are not laws.

Obooba is an enemy of God and man.

Akzed on February 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Soft tyranny -

an idea first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 work entitled Democracy in America. In effect, soft tyranny occurs whenever the social conditions of a particular community hinder any prospect of hope among its members.

How about 4 more years ? Then, I refer to Mark Levin:

The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state…. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objectives of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French Historian Alexis de Tocqueville called soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, partially leading to hard tyranny.

Next time you aren’t motivated to go all out for whoever the GOP nominee is, just think of what 4 more years of Obama is going to be like.

cougar on February 2, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Whoa. Cynical. Plausible? yes. cynical, definitely. Too bad you don’t work for CNN. seriously.

You work for the church for 20 years and then tell me I’m cynical.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Don’t have to. I am cynic extraordinaire. You find me an alternative.

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 9:58 PM

When we have come to the point where the President can rule a mandate on people or organizations by decree, then we have lost our form of government.

Obama has got to go.

crosspatch on February 2, 2012 at 9:59 PM

BeelzObama is not going after the Roman Catholic Church peeps, he and Witch Sibelius are after Christians of all stripes.

One needn’t be a RC ministry to object and refuse to hand out rubbers in the lunch room.

Akzed on February 2, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Don’t have to. I am cynic extraordinaire. You find me an alternative.

Not looking for an alternative. It is what it is… and I deal with it every day.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM

If Congress had proposed a law on this, it would have been shot down after a large public outcry (and some outcry in support). Congress as always is evading responsibility and accountability by delegating its authority to unaccountable bureaucrats. Apart from all the other problems with ObamaCare, it gave Sebelius power to do almost anything. I hope and pray that ObamaCare will be nullified or repealed, but if it stands wouldn’t it be funny to see a Republican-appointed HHS Secretary use this power to make some rules like prohibiting coverage of contraception and abortion … the libs would scream bloody murder.

toby11 on February 2, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Not looking for an alternative. It is what it is… and I deal with it every day.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Ok. So don’t cry when you’re working in dearborn. Or when one of your cohort bludgeons one of his students to death for wearing a crucifix. “it is what it is”

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 10:07 PM

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Re-read. Understood. My apologies. Bourbon, not, apparently, vino veriitas.

However, I seriously doubt that in the thousand+ pages of Obamaflimaflama there isn’t a hosing for the Church somewhere. Vegas odds says “house wins”, and the Pope has the wrong address.

M240H on February 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Ok. So don’t cry when you’re working in dearborn. Or when one of your cohort bludgeons one of his students to death for wearing a crucifix. “it is what it is”

What????

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM

It’s called cynicism. It’s the logical opposite extreme of what you argue. If you don’t want to go there, then just accept that there could be far worse. Yes, there is always room to “cultivate our garden”, but the world seldom works that way.

Before you belittle what you have, you should consider the opposite extreme.

No, I don’t advocate bludgeoning anyone, but apparently, that’s just the western hemisphere.

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2012 at 10:17 PM

The economy is about to collapse so Obama’s baiting conservatives into arguing social issues. It’ll probably work.

elfman on February 2, 2012 at 10:24 PM

It’s called cynicism. It’s the logical opposite extreme of what you argue. If you don’t want to go there, then just accept that there could be far worse. Yes, there is always room to “cultivate our garden”, but the world seldom works that way.

Before you belittle what you have, you should consider the opposite extreme.

No, I don’t advocate bludgeoning anyone, but apparently, that’s just the western hemisphere.

This place gets weirder every time I visit. I think I will “cultivate my garden elsewhere.”

As to belittling what I have or bludgeoning others in the Western Hemisphere…WTF are you talking about??

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM

We were a free country, once.

Wood Dragon on February 2, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Will the Catholics really just roll over on this?

Tim Zank on February 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Why, no. No, we will not.

mathscience41 on February 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM

All due respect but I too have worked for the Church — for about 25 years, now, between heavy volunteering and now paid employment — and the Church is angry about this.

This is not, from everything I’ve heard, about not paying for health care. This is about our RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. The Church, from higher ups to us lower worker bees, are angry that our freedoms are being attacked and the administration is gunning for us first. We are also angry that we’re forced to choose between violating our consciences and providing health care (a very high priority for the Church).

But we cannot violate our consciences. We will not give in. One of the reasons I personally went to work for the Church, among other reasons, was specifically to avoid paying into a system which pays for abortion and contraception.

We know we’re the first under this administration’s guns. We also know we are not the last. As someone said above, “first they came for the Catholics…”

inviolet on February 2, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Next time you aren’t motivated to go all out for whoever the GOP nominee is, just think of what 4 more years of Obama is going to be like.

cougar on February 2, 2012 at 9:57 PM

and how bummed out we will be when Mitt keeps Obamadontcare and all its policies.

8 weight on February 2, 2012 at 10:39 PM

From our “Christian” President: Biblical principles force me to stand on the side of restricting religious freedom.. or…er.. something.

Christian Conservative on February 2, 2012 at 10:52 PM

“John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!”
-Andrew Jackson

“Barack Obama has made his decision: now let him enforce it!”
-Catholic Bishops and millions of believers in the sanctity of life

Santorum called for civil disobedience, and the bishops invoked the language of the civil rights movement (“We cannot and will not obey this unlawful and unjust act”)

We’ll see who blinks first.
- It won’t be those of us who believe in the 1st Amendment in its entirety.

Few Things Considered on February 2, 2012 at 10:53 PM

The GOP need to pick up on this to demonstrate how this President has abandoned any discussion and his demands are the only ones he cares about.

djaymick on February 2, 2012 at 10:58 PM

As a lifelong Catholic, it might seem odd that the majority of American Catholics ignore the Church’s teaching on contraception but at the same time will rise up at any attempt by the government to force the Church herself to go against doctrine. As large as the Church is in America, it’s still a Protestant country. If Mitt Romney should win the White House, we will have had as many Mormon Presidents as Catholics (and African-Americans).

In short, I believe Catholics feel perfectly fine messing with their Church, but they don’t much cotton to outsiders messing with Her.

jdp629 on February 2, 2012 at 11:06 PM

urban elitist on February 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM

You may be comfortable with your federal overlords determining what is good for you on every front but I am not. If you really need a paternal/maternal state just move back home with your real mommy and daddy and start wearing an adult diaper and let them take care of you.

chemman on February 2, 2012 at 11:17 PM

No, they don’t. On my old insurance plan, I had a four day window to pick up my prescription. And I was not allowed any other option. If republicans really were smart about this, they’d change some of the nonsense rules used to dole out medicine.

peachaeo on February 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM

If they really were smart about health care, they’d be living on my world, right next to the place where 0bamessiah had His wondrous Greek columns erected with humor, and humor alone, on His mind.

The Republicans have no good excuse for continuing to drop the ball on various free-market healthcare reform propositions which would be popular with the public, letting the Dems dominate them on the issue by default.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 2, 2012 at 11:19 PM

crosspatch on February 2, 2012 at 9:59 PM

My mentor said to evaluate an idea not by how good it sounds today but what would be the irrational extremes it would be taken to. Guess what we have arrived at one of those irrational extremes of what people a century ago thought were good ideas in centralizing power in the federal government. Both parties have incrementally moved the ball forward to this extreme. How do we move it back?

chemman on February 2, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Funny thing is, contraception is covered under ObamaCare but LASIK is not.

carbon_footprint on February 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Shhhhhhh … don’t give them any more ideas.

toby11 on February 2, 2012 at 11:55 PM

So the a55holes in the Adminsitration say it’s ‘not open to debate / final’. Well we’ll see about a redress of grievances, then.

rayra on February 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

It’s easy to be indignant about the O’Bozo administration’s anti-Catholic and unconstitutional arrogance. But having a daughter at Notre Dame, I just can’t help but laugh about this.

She was there when the idiot liberals like John Jenkins who run ND thumbed their noses at the Bishops and Cardinals and invited this Muslim moral retard to the school and honored him. He hates the Catholic Church and pisses on them with regularity, and Jenkins thinks it is raining.

Now they want to feign righteous outrage and O’Bozo just laughs, and he’s right — most Catholics will side with him and not with the church they belong to; most Catholics don’t even know the doctrine. How sad to see God’s one true church so full of non-believers.

Jaibones on February 3, 2012 at 12:24 AM

when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object…

The left doubtless underestimates the consequences of coming down on these hospitals.

Karmashock on February 3, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Big mistake by Obama. Even tepid Catholics resent this intrusion on religious turf. Catholics may not dominate nationally, but they are concentrated in some iffy key states such as NM, WI, and NJ each of which has an above average Catholic population (about 40%). That’s what’s so really stupid about the ruling. These are states that have been trending away from the Democrats in recent elections. He can’t afford to further alienate them.

Even states with just average Catholic populations (around 20%) would be affected enough to reject him in November. For instance, PA, OH, and FL all have big Catholic populations. His poll numbers are already bad enough in these swing states. Add Jewish disenchantment over Obama’s attitude toward Israel and this ruling could make a considerable political difference. It’s a pretty stupid ruling coming in an election year–especially since it’s not likely to prevail in the Supreme Court. It also draws further attention to the suppression of liberty which is so characteristic of Obamacare itself.

writeblock on February 3, 2012 at 3:29 AM

How is it that the President can DOLE OUT THOUSANDS OF OBAMACARE WAIVERS FOR UNIONS AND OTHER CRONIES, but “there is NO DEBATE” regarding his mandate to CATHOLICS???

mountainaires on February 3, 2012 at 7:20 AM

WFUV of Fordham University airs programming from NPR. The announcer was foaming at the mouth over the withdrawal of funds by Komen Foundation earmarked for Planned Parenthood. This is a Jesuit institution. Yet this pro abortion message was broadcast by FU.
The problem with the Catholic Church is that there is only a thin veneer of christianity at the top level.
We, the ordinary folk are ignored and marginalised.
No longer.

Thicklugdonkey on February 3, 2012 at 8:05 AM

If you’re Obama, how do you lose the White moderate vote? You tell them they’re racists every time you disagree with you. How do you lose the moderate Catholic vote? Tell them you don’t care what their church teaches, they’re going to provide health insurance to everyone. How do you lose the country? By dividing the country into segments and then not leaving enough willing to vote for the divider.

bflat879 on February 3, 2012 at 8:07 AM

When do I get mah s**t! I demand my benevolent dear leader mandate that Big Insurance add “free” oil changes to my auto insurance coverage! And now, dammit, as I am incapable of buying those oil changes myself!

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Did I miss the explanation as to why bc is to be free with no copay -considering it isn’t even a medicine treating an illness?

katiejane on February 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Here’s a religious freedom decision handed down by the Iowa Supreme Court that may be of interest.

The Iowa Supreme Court says religious rights of a Mennonite teenager prevail over a county’s concern about protecting its roads.

The conflict was that the Amish community only allows steel wheels (not rubber)on tractors used for farming. The county has a law banning steel wheels on hard-surface roads.

taznar on February 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I’m sorry to say I hadn’t heard this, I try to keep up.

Linky? If so, this is gonna really blow up in his face.

Who is John Galt on February 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Muslims are equating insurance with gambling , which is haraam in islam.
Hence muslims will be exempt , but they will be eligible to use taxpayer funded healthcare .
Google ” jaazia” tax
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/amish_muslims_to_be_excused_fr.html

burrata on February 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM

It’s alright to beat your women, remove her clit, dress her in a tent, take away her right to vote, drive and own property.

Fine to behead infidels, dumb down entire populations by not allowing schools or teaching some drug addled pedophile prophet’s version of the world and the way it should be….

But, heaven forbid anyone gambles or buys insurance. You can’t make this stuff up. Truly our media makes the USSR pravda look like a pillar of journalistic integrity.

acyl72 on February 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Tell me again… Do elections have consequences?

steved95 on February 2, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Well done!

landowner on February 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3