Catholic group that supported ObamaCare rejects HHS mandate as “unworkable”

posted at 8:41 am on June 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

While the media focused intently on Barack Obama’s unilateral move to suspend deportations and issue work permits, they mainly missed another story which may have more long-term impact — depending on what the Supreme Court does this month.  One of Obama’s key allies in the Catholic Church on ObamaCare, the Catholic Health Association, ended a months-long review of the purported compromise Obama and Kathleen Sebelius offered after announcing the HHS mandate on contraception and sterilization on Friday, rejecting it as “unworkable“:

Sharpening an election-year confrontation over religious freedom and government health insurance rules, the nation’s Catholic hospitals on Friday rejected President Barack Obama’s compromise for providing birth control coverage to their women employees.

The Catholic Health Association was a key ally in Obama’s health care overhaul, defying opposition from church bishops to help the president win approval in Congress. But the group said Friday it does not believe church-affiliated employers should have to provide birth control as a free preventive service, as the law now requires.

The hospital group’s decision calls into question a compromise offered by the president himself only months ago, under which the cost of providing birth control would be covered by insurance companies and not religious employers. While churches and other places of worship are exempt from the birth control mandate, nonprofits affiliated with a religion, such as hospitals, are not.

In a letter to the federal Health and Human Services department, the hospital group said the compromise initially seemed to be “a good first step” but that examination of the details proved disappointing. The plan would be “unduly cumbersome” to carry out and “unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns” of all its members, the group said.

While the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have pushed for universal health coverage in the US for almost a century, the USCCB ended up opposing ObamaCare.  CHA, on the other hand, defiantly backed ObamaCare and helped lobby for it.  The administration had no hesitancy at all in promoting that support as proof that Catholics could back ObamaCare without fear.

Losing CHA over the mandate could be a big problem — if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw out the whole ObamaCare bill.  If only the central individual mandate gets overturned or the whole bill survives, then the legal basis for the HHS mandate remains, and the order will have to get litigated separately.  In a partial overturning, Congress will have to go back and try to either fix what’s left or undo everything else, and having CHA on the other side of political battle will make it even more difficult for Obama to move Congress to fix what remains.  If the whole bill survives, CHA’s opposition will sharpen Catholic opposition to Obama even further — especially with liberal Catholics who have only begun to question the HHS mandate and Obama’s view of power — at a time when Obama needs to stem the tide of a Catholic exodus from his base.

Speaking of which, as The Anchoress and Rocco Palmo note, the letter rejecting the HHS mandate “compromise” was signed by Sister Carol Keehan, whose initial openness to the “compromise” was hailed by the White House:

Coming in a five-page letter sent today by the Catholic Health Association to a top HHS administrator, the move (including draft proposals for an acceptable revision of the controversial Federal rule) follows months of tension between the US hierarchy and the association representing some 2,000 Stateside church health facilities, whose president, Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, stoked the ire of much of the hierarchy after voicing her approval of the White House’sFebruary “accommodation” on the plan, which the bishops deemed as being insufficient.

Today’s letter was signed by Keehan, CHA’s current board chair [Joseph R. Swedish], and his designated successor.

The Anchoress explains:

Recall that Sister Keehan’s initial approval of the “accommodation”, like Dionne’s, was released via the White House religion press portal almost simultaneously with the WH announcement; it gave enormous political cover to the president, and helped him to divide a church that had — quickly and uncharacteristically — united against the HHS Mandate. Now, she’s walking it back.

The big question will be whether CHA and its subsidiary organizations decide to join in lawsuits already filed against the mandate, or file more of their own.  The group represents over 600 Catholic hospitals, and many more health-care providers, and they could file separately or in the aggregate in new lawsuits in each federal district court.  That will complicate Obama’s public-relations efforts to shrug off the 43 lawsuits already filed — and perhaps convince the media to pay some attention to the wave of demonstrations that will take place in the Fortnight for Freedom, which starts on Thursday, in defense of religious liberty. The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago, when 160 rallies took place across the country against the HHS mandate.


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

Nanzi P. is most disappointed. They must not be “ardent, practicing Catholics” like she is.

AubieJon on June 18, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Given Zero’s history on abortion and other controversial topics, how on Earth did they think they could trust him to stay within their principles?

stvnscott on June 18, 2012 at 8:49 AM

On the coming SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare – I believe Justice Ginsberg tipped the decision when she talked about “deep divisions” at the court.

When liberals win – they are happy and compromise is in the air – when they lose – there are DEEP DIVISIONS – and the world is a dark place.

I think she tipped the coming decision – and I think her side LOST.

jake-the-goose on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Just heard on Fox News that the ruling might come down today. Rather than listen to the TV blah-blah, I’m just going to keep Hot Air open. You’re on it for us, right Ed? :-)

Grace_is_sufficient on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago in the past 3.5 yrs

better.

hillsoftx on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Be on the lookout for the SCOTUS decision to come today or, in an unprecedented move Thursday (it’s almost always on a Monday) or latest next Monday. SCOTUS Blog will be liveblogging.

Also, a very interesting article over at Forbes. It seems Ruth Bader-Meinhoff was possibly hinting that the heated argument was not necessarily about the bill but by the severability issue. Hmmm…

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM

The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago in the past 3.5 yrs
better.

hillsoftx on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Amen and +100

HomeoftheBrave on June 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM

The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago in the past 3.5 4.5 yrs

better.

hillsoftx on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Best.

stvnscott on June 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM

The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago in the past 3.5 100 yrs

better.

hillsoftx on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Best.

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM

A lot of sour grapes from a group that already cast their lot with redistributionists.

CycloneCDB on June 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Also, a very interesting article over at Forbes. It seems Ruth Bader-Meinhoff was possibly hinting that the heated argument was not necessarily about the bill but by the severability issue. Hmmm…

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM

She lost – and she’s mad about it. (IMO)

jake-the-goose on June 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM

This was evident in the oral arguments. The left side of the court was practically begging the others to ignore the lack of severability and keep some of the law intact.

stvnscott on June 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM

By the way, I think that’s why they added the extra day (Thursday) because they are still hammering out the severability issue. I don’t see what all the confusion is. The 3,000 page beast contains a lot of stuff, but there is no severability clause.

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

She lost – and she’s mad about it. (IMO)

jake-the-goose on June 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Yup. I seem to recall that during oral arguments, she was almost pleading to (paraphrasing) chop up the broccoli but keep the head.

I can’t see this thing being allowed to stand. I just can’t. Hoping for at least a glimmer of sanity prevailing.

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM

But will it mean votes in the Fall?

I’m reminded of the PUMAs who dutifully fell back into the Dem column when the day arrived in 2008. My sense is that the Catholic vote will dutifully fall back to the Dems in November.

There is a big difference between bitchin’ about something and actually taking a stand at the ballot box. I know a lot of Catholics who hate Republicans more than they care about birth control issues… and they’re generally inclined towards “single-payer”.

mankai on June 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Huh, and to think the plan sounded so frickin’ great when TFHP told everyone to relax, that it would be “free” medical care for all and not an unworkable governmental system.

Welcome to Flyoverville, rubes.

Bishop on June 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM

The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago, when 160 rallies took place across the country against the HHS mandate.

And we’re surprised be this? They don’t call it the Democrat-media complex for nothing.

Doughboy on June 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Obviously had to pass it to find out what was in it.

/too easy.

cajun carrot on June 18, 2012 at 9:02 AM

While the media focused intently on Barack Obama’s unilateral move to suspend deportations and issue work permits, they mainly missed another story…

…the media missed a story?…get out!…For 4 years they miss whatever stories they want on JugEars and his people…starting with vetting him! Heavans! Im’ just so shocked!

KOOLAID2 on June 18, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Rats jumping ship?

mjk on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

“ironclad”… it’s “ironclad”…

and these turbulent priests.. these bishops… exactly whom do they think they are? they’re not in charge of catholic church policy… nancy pelosi and barry are.

no problem. barry will just impose obamacare by executive fiat if it’s struck down. conservatives must agree-better to have a dictator than a “passive-aggressive” do nothing president.

mittens on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

If SCOTUS does not strike down this unabashed, unconstitutional, government overreach, I would advise you to start picking out an ice floe to put Grandma on.

kingsjester on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Let me ask a quick question: hypothetically, if I am the owner of a small business, and I have a health plan for my employees, but I am also a devout Christian who is also a Christian Scientist and does not believe in the use of antibiotics, should I be legally allowed to deny coverage of antibiotics on my employees health care plans because it would be a violation of my religious beliefs? Why or why not?

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

One of Obama’s key allies in the Catholic Church on ObamaCare, the Catholic Health Association, ended a months-long review of the purported compromise Obama and Kathleen Sebelius offered after announcing the HHS mandate on contraception and sterilization on Friday, rejecting it as “unworkable“:

Too little, too late. And clearly more a reaction to where Catholics are on this issue than any ideological position. The HHS fiat never required a months-long review for Catholics to understand it was “unworkable.” With all due respect, Sister Keehan betrayed the tenets of her faith.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:06 AM

With all due respect, Sister Keehan betrayed the tenets of her faith.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:06 AM

It’s not just Sister Keehan…

gryphon202 on June 18, 2012 at 9:08 AM

By the way, I think that’s why they added the extra day (Thursday) because they are still hammering out the severability issue. I don’t see what all the confusion is. The 3,000 page beast contains a lot of stuff, but there is no severability clause.

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Although I loathe the expression no-brainer, the absence of a severability clause makes this a no-brainer–especially given that the Dems controlled the entire process, included such a clause in the earlier versions, and ultimately yanked it out. I’m not aware that in oral argument the Obama administration argued that the omission was an oversight. The Dems clearly thought about including the clause and then yanked it out. The mental maturb*tion required to uphold severability on these facts will be unbelievable.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

You’re missing an important point. Many of these religious institutions self-insure (not the scenerio you set up). It isn’t just that Catholic institutions are required to provide access to free contraception to sluts like Sandra Fluke, they are required to actually pay for it.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:10 AM

It’s not just Sister Keehan…

gryphon202 on June 18, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Indeed.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:11 AM

While the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have pushed for universal health coverage in the US for almost a century, the USCCB ended up opposing ObamaCare.

Protip: “Universal health care” can only really be accomplished in the US in ways the Catholic Church can only object to. Socialists in this country have historically used hedonism as their major selling point, because Americans are not disgruntled serfs. And the hedonists want free love, baby–and someone else to pay the bill.

Sekhmet on June 18, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Let me ask a quick question: hypothetically, if I am the owner of a small business, and I have a health plan for my employees, but I am also a devout Christian who is also a Christian Scientist and does not believe in the use of antibiotics, should I be legally allowed to deny coverage of antibiotics on my employees health care plans because it would be a violation of my religious beliefs? Why or why not?

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

You should be legally allowed to purchase whatever health insurance as a benefit to your employees that you want, including the option to not purchase any health insurance at all.

Since when is health insurance benefit a constitutionally protected right of the employee?

PackerBronco on June 18, 2012 at 9:14 AM

In a letter to the federal Health and Human Services department, the hospital group said the compromise initially seemed to be “a good first step” but that examination of the details proved disappointing. The plan would be “unduly cumbersome” to carry out and “unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns” of all its members, the group said.

What the heck did they think was a second step? Knowing how obama feels about children (a puniishment) and his history in Illinois I guess the second step would be full blown abortion, even late term and the Catholics would be having to pay for it.
Get a clue!

Bambi on June 18, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Of all the people who should know that you can’t do a deal with the devil you’d think it would be the Catholic Church. But apparently anyone can be misled.

clippermiami on June 18, 2012 at 9:14 AM

…the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have pushed for universal health coverage in the US for almost a century

If you lay down with vipers….

Odysseus on June 18, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Let me ask a quick question: hypothetically, if I am the owner of a small business, and I have a health plan for my employees, but I am also a devout Christian who is also a Christian Scientist and does not believe in the use of antibiotics, should I be legally allowed to deny coverage of antibiotics on my employees health care plans because it would be a violation of my religious beliefs? Why or why not?

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I think you should be asking “should I be legally required to offer coverage….” And the answer is that you should not be required to offer it. Your employees should be informed of your position so that they can factor it into the decision they will make to work for you. At the same time, the employer will have to understand that he or she will likely have a smaller group of prospective employees from which to hire.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 9:15 AM

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

You should be allowed to not offer insurance and your employees should be allowed to pay for healthcare with their own money. Once Obamacare takes full effect, the employer would be fined per employee for not offering insurance and no one can pay for a treatment that they want when the govt says no.

txhsmom on June 18, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I bet we don’t hear about Sister Carol and her group being AGAINST the mandate now as we DID hear constantly about her group saying they would probably support it. The MSM will have to ignore this to cover for Obama. BTW, the Fortnight for Freedom begins June 21. It is a time of prayer and sacrifice for the cause of religious freedom. Note that Catholics won’t go out and declare jihads or scream, push, hit, and wave obscene signs to promote their cause. I don’t expect to hear much about this in the MSM, and it rare that the Church institutes something like this among the laity.

lukjuj on June 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM

The mental maturb*tion required to uphold severability on these facts will be unbelievable.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM

See Roe v. Wade, “penumbras” etc. Mental masturbation at a level so vigorous that brain matter squirted from the nostrils.

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Let me ask a quick question: hypothetically, if I am the owner of a small business, and I have a health plan for my employees, but I am also a devout Christian who is also a Christian Scientist and does not believe in the use of antibiotics, should I be legally allowed to deny coverage of antibiotics on my employees health care plans because it would be a violation of my religious beliefs? Why or why not?

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Try this one on for size:
Gender reassignment surgery is not covered by most health insurances. However, there are people who strongly believe that they are the wrong sex. Granted, not an organized religion, but they strongly, strongly believe it. Gender reassignment surgeries are stupid expensive. It takes months, if not years to get everything together. Then you have to think, if the new man wants to have teh sex, he’s going to need help. That help is normally not covered by insurance companies. But now it will be. Breast implants need to be replaced every ten to fifteen years.

You now have thousands upon thousands of dollars for this.

How about female circumcision? This is considered a rite of passage by Muslim faith groups. Should this be covered? (good luck, getting a physician to do it in the US or any Westernized country). Since it’s considered a religious rite of passage, should doctors and/or nurses be forced to do it?

mjk on June 18, 2012 at 9:18 AM

***

There is a big difference between bitchin’ about something and actually taking a stand at the ballot box. I know a lot of Catholics who hate Republicans more than they care about birth control issues… and they’re generally inclined towards “single-payer”.

mankai on June 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Beyond that, they’re generally big fans of amnesty, so Obama’s unilateral action last week, in their minds, is totally awesome and is just one more reason to vote for Obama.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

You’re missing an important point. Many of these religious institutions self-insure (not the scenerio you set up). It isn’t just that Catholic institutions are required to provide access to free contraception to sluts like Sandra Fluke, they are required to actually pay for it.

Ah, I see. Yeah, the point I am trying to make is that the term “Religious liberty” is a very general and broad term, and is sometimes used to push through laws that actually make no sense.

Laws that make it legal for Doctors to lie to mothers about possible defects or deformities of their unborn child are absolutely ridiculous. As are laws that make it legal for pharmacists to deny Plan B to rape victims.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Ed, I think you overestimate the influence that Church leadership has on the voting of the membership. Low-information voters vote without much information, by definition.

KS Rex on June 18, 2012 at 9:21 AM

… the compromise initially seemed to be “a good first step” but that examination of the details proved disappointing. The plan would be “unduly cumbersome” to carry out and “unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns” of all its members…

They finally figured out that Obama wanted them to kiss his ring ass.

RobBert on June 18, 2012 at 9:22 AM

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Let’s take your hypothetical in another direction. You are a devout Christian Scientist who does not believe in the use of antibiotics. Should you be allowed to purchase coverage that does not include antibiotics for YOURSELF?

ObamaCare says you do not have that right since the HHS secretary defines for you what is an acceptable plan.

PackerBronco on June 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM

New anthem for the Catholic Church.

“Losing My Religion” (forcibly)

Rixon on June 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Just heard on Fox News that the ruling might come down today. Rather than listen to the TV blah-blah, I’m just going to keep Hot Air open. You’re on it for us, right Ed? :-)

Grace_is_sufficient on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

OT: For this reason, I’m convinced that the Obama administration was tipped off by someone about the Obamacare outcome. They desperately needed something to upset the string of bad news before a SCOTUS slap down. If a slapdown were to follow the past two weeks without some positive spin for Obama, I think the perception would have been that his term is in a death spiral. Now, as it stands, Obama can claim to have provided a partial solution to one of the day’s great issues even if his signature issue was overturned by the big, bad, GOP-controlled SCOTUS and his campaign is besieged by Koch Brothers money unleashed by Citizens United.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM

“The big question will be whether CHA and its subsidiary organizations decide to join in lawsuits already filed against the mandate, or file more of their own.”

No, the big question is:

“But will it mean votes in the Fall?

I’m reminded of the PUMAs who dutifully fell back into the Dem column when the day arrived in 2008. My sense is that the Catholic vote will dutifully fall back to the Dems in November.

There is a big difference between bitchin’ about something and actually taking a stand at the ballot box. I know a lot of Catholics who hate Republicans more than they care about birth control issues… and they’re generally inclined towards “single-payer”.

mankai on June 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM”

Indeed.

“The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago, when 160 rallies took place across the country against the HHS mandate.”

You’ve answered your own big question Ed. The ’12 election will turn on the economy, and while your arguments against the HHS “compromise” are well founded, I doubt that there are enough folks who wake up every day worried about it to significantly tilt the electorate. Lawsuits are an entirely different matter.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM

One wonders what the geniuses at CHA expected from socialize medicine from a humanist government. Maybe they should try thinking things through a bit – beforehand.

paul1149 on June 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Losing CHA over the mandate could be a big problem…

Well, it should be a big problem, but a large percentage of my fellow Catholics are democrats first, with pro-life and religious freedom concerns coming in a distant second.

Wishing it weren’t so…

shinty on June 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Well, that means that all Catholic organizations are against the HHS mandate. I’ve never seen this kind of unity in my lifetime.

theCork on June 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM

“The big question will be whether CHA and its subsidiary organizations decide to join in lawsuits already filed against the mandate, or file more of their own.”

No, the big question is:

“But will it mean votes in the Fall?

I’m reminded of the PUMAs who dutifully fell back into the Dem column when the day arrived in 2008. My sense is that the Catholic vote will dutifully fall back to the Dems in November.

There is a big difference between b!tchin’ about something and actually taking a stand at the ballot box. I know a lot of Catholics who hate Republicans more than they care about birth control issues… and they’re generally inclined towards “single-payer”.

mankai on June 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM”

Indeed.

“The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago, when 160 rallies took place across the country against the HHS mandate.”

You’ve answered your own big question Ed. The ’12 election will turn on the economy, and while your arguments against the HHS “compromise” are well founded, I doubt that there are enough folks who wake up every day worried about it to significantly tilt the electorate. Lawsuits are an entirely different matter.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM

RE: theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Laws that make it legal force Doctors to lie to mothers about possible defects or deformities of their unborn child are absolutely ridiculous. As are laws that make it legal for force pharmacists to sell Plan B to rape victims.

FIFY

RobBert on June 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM

On a day like today, wondering where crr6 is. Oh well.

txmomof6 on June 18, 2012 at 9:30 AM

***

Laws that make it legal for Doctors to lie to mothers about possible defects or deformities of their unborn child are absolutely ridiculous. As are laws that make it legal for pharmacists to deny Plan B to rape victims.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

In the case of doctors’ lying, what are these laws of which you speak? I’ve never heard of this.

In the case of pharmacists, it’s called a conscience exception. And there’s invariably another pharmacist who will dispense Plan B. This is a straw man.

BuckeyeSam on June 18, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Ed
I’m sorry but the “media” hasn’t done there job in well over 35 years, but I know you already know that……….;)

angrymike on June 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Laws that make it legal for Doctors to lie to mothers about possible defects or deformities of their unborn child are absolutely ridiculous. As are laws that make it legal for pharmacists to deny Plan B to rape victims.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Glad you are so morally superior you can pass judgement on other “weaker” individuals who view the creation of life differently than you enlightened beings.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM

One wonders what the geniuses at CHA expected from socialize medicine from a humanist government. Maybe they should try thinking things through a bit – beforehand.

paul1149 on June 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM

It’s taken me years to realize that most Catholic organizations’ first loyalty is to statist politics.

Lip service aside, religious freedom and the pro-life thing really just don’t make our radar. Sadly.

shinty on June 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Dang…….self, always read comments before commenting ………….

angrymike on June 18, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Just heard on Fox News that the ruling might come down today. Rather than listen to the TV blah-blah, I’m just going to keep Hot Air open. You’re on it for us, right Ed? :-)

I don’t think we’ll get a ruling today-though i’d like it.
My feeling is the court will wait til the end so they can get out of town-before the announce it.

gerrym51 on June 18, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Well, that means that all Catholic organizations are against the HHS mandate. I’ve never seen this kind of unity in my lifetime.

theCork on June 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM

All Catholic Organizations except Democrat Catholics led by High Priestess Pelosi.

PackerBronco on June 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Of all the people who should know that you can’t do a deal with the devil you’d think it would be the Catholic Church. But apparently anyone can be misled.

clippermiami on June 18, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The official Church has been bedding with vipers in order to advance their cherry-picked socialism tenants for quite some time now. They’re only now waking up to what they’ve done because the vipers are about to bite them in their robed backsides.

MelonCollie on June 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Glad you are so morally superior you can pass judgement on other “weaker” individuals who view the creation of life differently than you enlightened beings.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM

If you are a Doctor and you knowingly lie to a pregnant mother and tell her that her unborn child has no defects when it does, you should lose your medical license, be forced to pay a fine, and never be allowed to practice medicine again.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

The media didn’t do its job at all a week ago, when 160 rallies took place across the country against the HHS mandate.

Wrong. That’s like saying that Barky is a failure. He’s actually succeeded wildly at tearing this country down, and “the media” have been just as successful at abetting him.

But you already knew that… It’s just that it drives me nuts to hear right-minded people buy into (or at least slip-slide past) the concept that the country is crumbling because Barky’s a failure, or the media is a failure, when it’s quite the opposite – their missions are being accomplished daily. Same with accepting the use of “swiftboating” as a pejorative, which implies that the charges weren’t true.

bofh on June 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Back in Europe, Socialists made their case to the people by appealing to their envy of the upper classes or guilt at the thousands of years of privilege that made the European upper classes. The socialists were at the forefront of the overthrow of the oppressive ancien regimes that once dominated Europe. You could be a very, very devout and good Catholic and still want to see the oppressive order overthrown.

The upper classes in the US either themselves or had a family member start out with nothing, build the better mousetrap, and reap the rewards. Class in America is a place you are right now, and who knows the future? There isn’t a lot of long-standing class resentment that socialists in this country could use. So they had to foment racial resentment and promise hedonism to advance their cause here. And hedonism has proven way too successful to give up as a strategy, just to appease the Church. Only socialists can get the Catholics universal health care, but only at the price the socialists are willing to charge.

That’s reality.

Sekhmet on June 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM

If you are a Doctor and you knowingly lie to a pregnant mother and tell her that her unborn child has no defects when it does, you should lose your medical license, be forced to pay a fine, and never be allowed to practice medicine again.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

What are you talking about?

hopeful on June 18, 2012 at 9:43 AM

If you are a Doctor and you knowingly lie to a pregnant mother and tell her that her unborn child has no defects when it does, you should lose your medical license, be forced to pay a fine, and never be allowed to practice medicine again.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And you have proof this is happening? Didn’t think so.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:43 AM

the USCCB ended up opposing ObamaCare

The USCCB is very much in favor of total government funding of health care, and opposes only the portion of control over health care that conflicts with doctrine. This is a relatively small disagreement in the grand scheme of healthcare, and it is misleading and wrong to say the USCCB “opposes” ObamaCare.

If the President can find a solution to the reproductive political issue dividing two important elements of his coalition, Catholic leadership (including the USCCB) and feminist political organizations, then he will have built an unassailable dominance.

Anyone opposed to government control of healthcare must recognize that the USCCB is not our ally in this fight, they oppose us. They do not oppose ObamaCare or the individual mandate, only the reproductive coverage.

MTF on June 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM

And you have proof this is happening? Didn’t think so.

Happy Nomad on June 18, 2012 at 9:43 AM

It isn’t happening because, in current laws across almost every state, if a Doctor does this, they can be sued and probably will lose their license, be fined, and possibly face jail time. But now states like Kansas and Arizona are trying to make it legal for Doctors to lie to their patients, and it is absolutely ridiculous. No logical, sane human being should think that it is moral and should be legal for licensed Doctors to blatantly lie to their patients about serious medical issues.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Anyone opposed to government control of healthcare must recognize that the USCCB is not our ally in this fight, they oppose us.

Unfortunately true.

shinty on June 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Ah, I see. Yeah, the point I am trying to make is that the term “Religious liberty” is a very general and broad term, and is sometimes used to push through laws that actually make no sense.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

You argue that religious liberty is “very general and broad term, and is sometimes used to push through laws that actually make no sense.” That is backwards. The constitutions says the government is restricted from making laws impacting free exercise of religion. The point is not to search the world’s religions for all possible exceptions, but to make no law in the first place. So they shouldn’t have insisted on insurance for preventing a healthy condition (pregnancy).

However, if you are an employer, you are not a church or a religious institution and the constitutional protections do not apply.

Finally, comparing devout Christians and Christian scientists nonsensical. Christian scientists are outside orthodox Christianity.

STL_Vet on June 18, 2012 at 10:18 AM

“The ‘unworkable’ decision came unexpectedly…”
/Barack Kardashian Obama

US Catholics: dig in your heels on this one… Remember at the ballot box in NO-vember…

Khun Joe on June 18, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Just heard on Fox News that the ruling might come down today. Rather than listen to the TV blah-blah, I’m just going to keep Hot Air open. You’re on it for us, right Ed? :-)

Grace_is_sufficient on June 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Unfortunately, no. The Supreme Court released their batch of rulings for today, and Obamacare wasn’t one of them.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-not-today-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare-still-pending-20120618,0,1361423.story

Shump on June 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

“Live by the sword, die by the sword.”

The Catholic Church has for too long let liberal elements run a muck with issues such as health care. Various parishes openly supported ObamaCare under the guise of the social conscience banner.

Yet they never looked deeply enough at the conflicting issues which made this entire proposal unworkable and unfathomable in a democratic society.

It was clear from the beginning that Obamacare was untenable from a fiscal standpoint.

It was also clear the general quality of health care would be diminished. For all of us.

Finally and most importantly, the authors made no secret, nor did honest analysis leave any doubt, this would usurp individual rights, diminish our freedoms and extend constitutional boundaries beyond and reasonable limits or intent. That is just plain dangerous.

When we fought back, the Church told us we were overly concerned and implied we were somehow un-Christian in our intent. Insulting, really.

Now they want our help fighting this? Really- when the SCOTUS is ready to strike it down?

All I remember is when we needed the Church they largely abandoned us in the quest for some greater good. It left me wondering what other freedom diminishing proposals they would support in the interest of the so-called greater good.

The Church should learn to strike a better balance or they will find themselves losing more of the hard core parishioners who supporter them over the years.

Marcus Traianus on June 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I agree that the Church has a history of lying down with dogs and waking up with fleas. However, many have the Church’s actions wrong when it comes to Obamacare. They refused to put in the conscience provision when the law was enacted and the Church, the USCCB, DID NOT endorse Obamacare. So the Church did NOT largely abandon us in the quest for some greater good. It sought the conscience provision which it was obviously right about pursuing.

Haunches on June 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM

paul1149 on June 18, 2012 at 9:26 AM

shinty on June 18, 2012 at 9:33 AM

So I’m guessing they did what Nanzi told them and supported it without ever reading it. I’ve said before that Catholics as a group have supported the Dems far too heavily – to their own detriment – as they are now finally figuring out.

dentarthurdent on June 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM

All that the government needed to do was to allow for more than one type of insurance policy. EVERY insurance company has supported customer choice from the beginning.

ONLY the government could be so stupid and incompetant to NOT support multiple types of policies.

The Obama administration has shown the country exactly why the government is not the best place to make ANY decision.

Freddy on June 18, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Laws that make it legal for Doctors to lie to mothers about possible defects or deformities of their unborn child are absolutely ridiculous. As are laws that make it legal for pharmacists to deny Plan B to rape victims.

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I’d love to see some actual evidence that either of the highlighted sections are actually being codified into law, as you allege.

And no, one-sided articles (from either pro-life or pro-choice publications) aren’t “evidence…”

cs89 on June 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Better late than never.

ConservativeLA on June 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM

theoddmanout on June 18, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Beware that how you judge will be meted out on you by others.

chemman on June 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Catholics as a group have supported the Dems far too heavily – to their own detriment – as they are now finally figuring out.

dentarthurdent on June 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM

A few of my fellow Catholics are realizing the dark side of the statist agenda.

I’m afraid most of who supported this pro-abortion administration in the past will continue to do so.

Too many Catholics support life and religious liberty only until those concepts come up against the Democrat agenda. Then they revert to their deepest affiliations… and do the bidding of the DNC.

shinty on June 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM

The fools should have never supported it in the first place.

Open your eyes for Nov.

Schadenfreude on June 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Since when is health insurance benefit a constitutionally protected right of the employee?

PackerBronco on June 18, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Since that socialist FDR pushed it with the economic bill of rights insanity and coupled healthcare to jobs for tax reasons.

Anyway, this is why I laughed heartily when the catholic leaders all of a sudden were unhappy with obamacare. Uh, did you socialist idiots think you’d get a pass on birthcontrol/abortion? Ya dance with the devil…

oryguncon on June 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM

So CHA was for Obamacare before they were against it. This falls under the Category “Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.”. I’m fully against Obamacare but willing to make CHA live under the health care policy they’ve been asking for for last 100 years, and with the mandate.

TulsAmerican on June 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM

So CHA was for Obamacare before they were against it. This falls under the Category “Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.”. I’m fully against Obamacare but willing to make CHA live under the health care policy they’ve been asking for for last 100 years, and with the mandate.

TulsAmerican on June 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM

With you.

Let’s remember an important detail… CHA was for Obamacare when it mattered, when the game was on the line.

Now that the CHA has helped pass Obamacare, they now choose come out against it. Most likely, too late to do any good.

Statist roots go deep in my church, I’m afraid.

shinty on June 18, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

{^_^}

herself on June 19, 2012 at 3:49 AM