Krauthammer: Updated HHS contraception mandate is a “farce”

posted at 9:21 am on February 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

If you missed last week’s Friday afternoon document dump, the Department of Health and Human Services updated its controversial contraception mandate, in part due to a demand in federal court.  The new rules supposedly expand the religious exemption to include non-profit organizations that have an affiliation with a church or ecclesial community, but the new rules don’t acknowledge personal freedom of religious expression in any other context, nor do they free the non-profits from all connection to the mandate.  Charles Krauthammer explains why this is a “farce”:

If you missed it over the weekend, I wrote a column for The Fiscal Times that hits some of the same points:

However, HHS still can’t quite let these organizations off the hook entirely.  For those that purchase insurance, the self-certification has to be presented to the insurer, which then has to offer no-cost contraceptive care to the employees directly.  For self-insured organizations – and there are quite a few in the religious-organization sector – the self-certification is presented to the third-party administrator, who then has to find contraception insurance for the employees.

In both cases, everyone has to pretend that (a) the employer isn’t facilitating this in some manner in contravention to their religious principles, and (b) contraception is entirely free. …

This new “modification” only applies to the scale of the insult to religious liberty and practice, rather than retreating from it entirely.  HHS continues to impose yet another cost on businesses and insurers at a time when job creation remains stagnant and the economy is contracting.  At the same time, the Obama administration continues to operate on two levels of condescension: presuming to tell business owners what their religious beliefs should be and treating women in the workplace as children who can’t take care of their own birth control needs without a patronizing freebie from their bosses.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been one of the most prominent opponents of the HHS contraception mandate’s infringement on religious liberty, has said they will study the new rules.  I don’t expect them to be terribly impressed with the changes, in large part because it still means that people of faith cannot live their faith fully under this government edict.  It’s a farce, all right, and a completely unnecessary one.


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

haven’t watched fox in years. who is this guy?

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Can a drone be used as an IUD?

dmann on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

haven’t watched fox in years.

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Maybe that’s why Sarah doesn’t work there anymore.

Marcus on February 5, 2013 at 9:32 AM

haven’t watched fox in years. who is this guy?

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Seriously?
Embarrassing to admit publicly to such astounding ignorance.

Curmudgeon on February 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Since when did the Executive branch get the ability to decide which individuals or institutions get to exercise their first amendment rights? And I love this one:

which then has to offer no-cost contraceptive care to the employees directly.

“no-cost contraceptive care” isn’t insurance at all, it’s just another government give away, this time to the promiscuous.

tommyboy on February 5, 2013 at 9:35 AM

BarkyCare is resembing an MC Escher piece.

Bishop on February 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Lipstick on a Fascist Pig.

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I’m against the mandate because mandates are bad period. But this 1st Amendment argument is a bad one.

Otherwise you could say any law is invalid because it violates your religious beliefs.

commodore on February 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM

haven’t watched fox in years. who is this guy?

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

This is your contribution to the discussion? Admitting that you have no idea what’s going on? Remind me not to rely on you for information or enlightenment.

jakev on February 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM

MSM, when it reported on this over the weekend, lauded this as “problem solved.”

What a crock. Evidently, they’re too lazy to read the details carefully and intelligently.

I love liberal reasoning: if another person pays for the end cost, you aren’t paying for it.

The Obama administration is the George-Costanza administrion: “Jerry, it’s not a lie, if you believe it.”

BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I still find it hilarious that the Obama leftists, who’d one would THINK would be rabinously protective of the 1st amendment, are the ones who are the largest threat to that sacred Constitutional right.

Anyone who would defend a government intrusion of this magnitutde isn’t ignorant – but a traitor.

Turtle317 on February 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Well, it may not matter anyway because I think Karl Rove’s takeover has begun with this guy.

bloggless on February 5, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Of course this is a farce, because liberals believe in collective rights, not those of the individual as the Constitution was meant to protect. Certain groups are ‘allowed’ a limit that isn’t a limit at all to government power, and the individual is left to swing in the wind.

This is what Obama meant with his slogan “Yes we can”. The Constitution says no, and that is Obama’s retort.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Bottom line: the Obama Administration is saying to Catholics, and to the evangelical family that runs Hobby Lobby, “You are welcome to practice your religion as you please on Sunday mornings, but come Monday morning, you must run your businesses as though you are Unitarians.” That is a very cramped version of free exercise.

radjah shelduck on February 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM

“Elections don’t trump the Bill of Rights.”

Elections shouldn’t trump the Bill of Rights. I wish they didn’t.

But they do.

shinty on February 5, 2013 at 9:48 AM

“no-cost contraceptive care” isn’t insurance at all, it’s just another government give away, this time to the promiscuous.

tommyboy on February 5, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Beyond the contraception mandate, Obamacare isn’t health-insurance reform; it’s healthcare welfare. Look at all the mandatory coverage requirements and then look at all the subsidies being funneled to people up to a fairly high level of income.

Where have prices gone down in medical care? Two situations generally NOT covered by insurance: plastic surgery and lasik treatment. Why is that? Cost-conscious consumers have to pay for those treatments out of their own pockets.

Minimum level of care? Fine. Let the “underresourced” annually apply to a local charity for assistance so that they have go face to face with someone in that charity and say, “Yeah, I’m hear again this year because I did nothing to improve my situation so that I don’t need your help and that I have to drain resources that could be devoted to others who really need the help.”

BuckeyeSam on February 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Seriously?
Embarrassing to admit publicly to such astounding ignorance.

Curmudgeon on February 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Seriously? its called obamacare. knew this years ago.

also know that the left is running rampant. unchecked by the republicans. getting away with EVERYTHING.

it’s a one party country. maybe you haven’t heard.

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 9:53 AM

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been one of the most prominent opponents of the HHS contraception mandate’s infringement on religious liberty, has said they will study the new rules. I don’t expect them to be terribly impressed with the changes, in large part because it still means that people of faith cannot live their faith fully under this government edict. It’s a farce, all right, and a completely unnecessary one.

Funny how the Bishops were all for Obamacare until the administration went out after them and their religious views instead of supporting those of us who objected on other grounds. Chickens have come home to roost. Not that rank-and-file Catholics care- they voted overwhelmingly for a second Obama term. Again, welcome home chickens.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Mr. Obama may have, with this action, proved the non-Constitutionality of the HHS mandate.

Mr. Obama’s exemptions, which allow some to freely practice their faith, but denies others an identical practice of faith in an identical way, contravenes the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment.

Furthermore, by making these exceptions, Obama acknowledges that the rules place a burden on the free practice of religion — similar to the way that a poll tax places a burden on the free practice of the right to vote.

Now will come the excluded others, like Hobby Lobby, making both of these points in court.

The Hobby Lobby fight goes on!

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

With all of the various shell games going on within the O-care power grab, this is only the beginning. The next 3 years will be shocking to many, and miserable for all (unless you are included in the carved-out exemptions made available to the cronies.)

hillbillyjim on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Again, welcome home chickens.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:02 AM

And those of us Catholics who voted against Mr. Obama — do WE deserve this?

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Elections shouldn’t trump the Bill of Rights. I wish they didn’t.

But they do.

shinty on February 5, 2013 at 9:48 AM

That really depends on your outlook. Elections trump the Bill Of Rights only if we, the people, put our trust in government to defend those rights instead of standing up and claiming our rights when the government becomes oppressive. Religious freedom and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are two areas where the future will be entirely dictated by what the public does and not what some rat-eared tyrant wants to do.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:04 AM

And those of us Catholics who voted against Mr. Obama — do WE deserve this?

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

No more so than any American. But, Catholics and Jews are particularly blame-worthy as a collective group. Well before the election it was clear that the rat-eared wonder was out to force the Catholic church to provide contraception and that Israel was to be humiliated during a second term. Yet Catholics and Jews voted in overwhelming numbers to give this vile parasite a second term. If the roost fits wear it.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

And those of us Catholics who voted against Mr. Obama — do WE deserve this?

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

obama is a master at driving a wedge in the middle of an institution. So far only the NRA has stood strong. maybe we should co opt their name and start a new party:)

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

obama is a master at driving a wedge in the middle of an institution. So far only the NRA has stood strong. maybe we should co opt their name and start a new party:)

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

New
Republican
Alternative

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:16 AM

No more so than any American. But, Catholics and Jews are particularly blame-worthy as a collective group.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Collective guilt is a liberal thing, not a conservative one.

That’s why we have a tax on “the rich” — who “are not paying their fair share” merely because Warren Buffet chooses not to do so.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM

I’m against the mandate because mandates are bad period. But this 1st Amendment argument is a bad one.

Otherwise you could say any law is invalid because it violates your religious beliefs.

commodore on February 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Historically, one has to show both institutional and individual adherence to an established doctrine before one is allowed religious exemption from a law. A good example is conscientious objector status. One cannot just declare themselves both religious and against war. In order to qualify, one must show both that you have a history of being a person of faith and second you come from a religious background,i.e. denomination, that is one that rejects war and military service. The bar has always been higher than simply declaring that hey this violates my religious beliefs.

STL_Vet on February 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Otherwise you could say any law is invalid because it violates your religious beliefs.

commodore on February 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Not really. It would seem that any claim would have to have a basis in a fundamental principle of your religion.

Mimzey on February 5, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Most of the current administration’s policies can be described as a farce.

GarandFan on February 5, 2013 at 10:19 AM

obama is a master at driving a wedge in the middle of an institution. So far only the NRA has stood strong. maybe we should co opt their name and start a new party:)

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Obama is expert at driving wedges all across American society. Not only does he set battle lines in an area, but he has so many of them going on at once. People are becoming increasing polarized on almost every issue, and suspicions run deep. The MSM stoke the fires, becoming increasingly pressing, shrill, emotional, and offensive to listeners who don’t agree with them.

Rifts are being opened in families and among friends, and I fear that some might never be healed even after the end of Obama’s term. Everything now is politicized, even this year’s Superbowl. We had anti-gun and pro-gay ads, which shows just how bad it has become. I suspect more is on the way; Obama’s opinion is sought on everything under the sun and he’s not done by a long shot.

I dread what this country will be like in four years, and what kinds of awfulness we’ll see on the way there.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I dread what this country will be like in four years, and what kinds of awfulness we’ll see on the way there.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

They’ve been mixing and baking this fouled cake since they tossed God out in favor of drugs, sex, abortion and guilt-free lunches eco-gods, and fatherlesss homes. Where have you been to just notice, now that the cake has finlly com e out of the oven?

Don L on February 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Where have you been to just notice, now that the cake has finlly com e out of the oven?

Don L on February 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I noticed a long time ago. It’s only now that my well of optimism is running dry.

Liam on February 5, 2013 at 10:39 AM

But this 1st Amendment argument is a bad one.

Otherwise you could say any law is invalid because it violates your religious beliefs.

commodore on February 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM

No, it’s a very good one. Here comes Mr. Obama attempting to accomodate religion by allowing some said accomodation but excluding others.

The people being allowed are being allowed on religious grounds, and the people being disallowed are being disallowed on identical grounds.

Furthermore, the optics of the law are “the Gastapo says you don’t have to turn in the Jews if you designate a third party to do so.” or “You don’t have to pay a poll tax if you can find a third party to do so for you.”

These acts are the last wheezes of desperate men.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Collective guilt is a liberal thing, not a conservative one.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Wait until Judgment Day and the fools find out that their silly rules don’t hold water. I suspect they’re be many a liberal lecturing God about His improper view of social justice and fairness….
Popcorn time indeed.

Don L on February 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

And those of us Catholics who voted against Mr. Obama — do WE deserve this?

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

That’s right Catholics. So remember, you wear the stain of Original Sin of being associated with a group that is proported to gone along with this travesty, even though you fought against it personally.

Because in the end it doesn’t matter how you feel as an individual, it’s what you belong to as a group that matters.

itsspideyman on February 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Don L on February 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM

They have been putting together the ingredients to make this cake since at least Teddy Roosevelt. Those behaviors and changes are the consequences of that path. We have reached the frosting on the cake portion of the end game.

chemman on February 5, 2013 at 11:06 AM

I’m against the mandate because mandates are bad period. But this 1st Amendment argument is a bad one.

Otherwise you could say any law is invalid because it violates your religious beliefs.

commodore on February 5, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Obama has decided to define religious practice as sunday service within the 4 walls of a church.

When was Obama granted powers in the US Constitution to decide that?

When was Congress granted powers in the US Constitution to decide that?

It is a strong argument for Religious Liberty because the US Constitution protects Religions from Government deciding Doctrine.

In the Mormon Case, Multiple Marriage was a later doctrine that defied the existing law of the land & The New Mormon Church reverted to it’s earlier doctrine.

This is different as Catholic Doctrine and Charitable Practice has been consistent and active since the Roman Empire. Catholic Charities,Schools,Charity Hospitals are part of a Dioceses and part of the Catholic System of subsidiarity which under our Constitution is protected from Governmental pressure to conform to Governmental State Religion (In this case, not Protestantism but Socialized Secularism)

My original Ancestor was an Ulster-Scot (Presbyterian) who’s family first immigrated to Ulster to escape persecution from The Kirk (State Anglican Church of Scotland) and later immigrated to the Virginia Frontier in 1735 to escape oppression and persecution of the Anglican Church of England.

My other ancestors were rank and file Irish Catholics, who had been persecuted as Papists in a joint genocidal pogrom instituted by the Empire for hundreds of years..and immigrated here to St. Louis shortly after the Penal Laws were beginning to be reformed, preceding the Great Potato Famine.

This Constitutional issue matters to every American and is an unprecedented assault on the US Constitution.

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:08 AM

This Constitutional issue matters to every American and is an unprecedented assault on the US Constitution.

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:08 AM

A very good argument. I’m going to remember this one.

+100

itsspideyman on February 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM

And those of us Catholics who voted against Mr. Obama — do WE deserve this?

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

No more so than any American. But, Catholics and Jews are particularly blame-worthy as a collective group. Well before the election it was clear that the rat-eared wonder was out to force the Catholic church to provide contraception and that Israel was to be humiliated during a second term. Yet Catholics and Jews voted in overwhelming numbers to give this vile parasite a second term. If the roost fits wear it.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Catholics & Jews historically identify as both a religion & an ethnicity.

So many catholics identify as such ethnically, but don’t practice the religion and openly defy Church Doctrine.

Currently within the RCC conservatives are making a lot of headway and the Liberals who hijacked Vatican II are retiring,or dying out. Pope Benedict XVI has been building a strong conservative base, that will outlast his pontificate in response to Catholic Congregational Demand.

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Yet Catholics and Jews voted in overwhelming numbers to give this vile parasite a second term. If the roost fits wear it.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

NO THEY DID NOT!!!!!!!! I am so sick of this calumny bandied about not only by the liberal rags but by anti-Catholic fellow conservatives. Those people labeling themselves ‘Catholic’ are as ‘Catholic’ as Nancy Pelosi. She has excommunicated herself (latae sententiae) by her formal cooperation in abortion through her votes, even if her bishop hasn’t had the guts to do it publicly, and the vast majority of the Obama voting ‘Catholics’ are Easter and Christmas and wedding ‘Catholics’. They haven’t been to confession in about 30 years and reject most of what The Church teaches. You can’t do that and be ‘Catholic’! So please stop calling them that.

The majority of Faithful active/Mass going ‘Catholics’ voted Republican. My child’s parochial school had an ‘election’ on Election Day, and the vote was something like 97%-3% Romney with possibly a couple Ron Paul voters.

And while the USCCB has been an unmitigated disaster in the recent past, the liberal/progressive/Marxist liberation theology warped bishops are quickly being replaced by Orthodox bishops. Deo Gratias! And thank you, Pope Benedict XVI.

I never heard or saw my bishop campaign for Obamacare, but he has had every priest in his diocese announce that we must pray an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be after every weekend Mass for a renewed respect for the Sanctity of Human Life and protection of our religious freedoms since well before the election.

We Catholics are not your enemy.

John 17

pannw on February 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

That’s right Catholics. So remember, you wear the stain of Original Sin of being associated with a group that is proported to gone along with this travesty, even though you fought against it personally.

Because in the end it doesn’t matter how you feel as an individual, it’s what you belong to as a group that matters.

itsspideyman on February 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Elements of Obamacare meet the Church’s requirement for social justice — the acts of a government to meet the needs of the poor. Others certainly do not.

So, while I can say they were rather stupid, they had the teachings of Jesus in mind.

As for myself, the Church teaches that salvation is reached partly through personal faith and acts (the other portion of salvation being provided by the Holy Spirit) — such as almsgiving, but certainly not through stealing from the rich and then claiming that money as my alms — which is what happens when you rely upon the sovereign state (Caesar) to perform acts which you are obligated to perform yourself. Indeed, when we examine the matter of Jesus and the rich young man, we find that Jesus did not force the young man to give all his money to the poor, and there is a lesson there — in Jesus’ (and, by extension, God’s) mind, the money belonged to the young man, and he was being given free will to do with said money as he pleased — for good or for ill.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM

We Catholics are not your enemy.

John 17

pannw on February 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Thanks.

I’m sick of this anti-Catholic bias.

itsspideyman on February 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM

*ahem* That’s what I would have said if I was calm and composed. :*)

pannw on February 5, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Elements of Obamacare meet the Church’s requirement for social justice — the acts of a government to meet the needs of the poor. Others certainly do not.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM

But it takes everything out of context and places the government’s role before all others which is completely backwards. In Rerum Novarum, it clearly states that government comes as a last resort, only necessary following the failure of the Church, town, neighborhood, family to care for the poor. Obamacare distorts that, placing government in the chief role, and is a mechanism for destroying the individual, family and Church’s ability to care for the poor. Heck, at $20000 dollars a year, it destroys the families ability to care for itself. Which of course is the goal, for the ‘social justice’ distorters.

pannw on February 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Yet Catholics and Jews voted in overwhelming numbers to give this vile parasite a second term. If the roost fits wear it.

Happy Nomad on February 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

NO THEY DID NOT!!!!!!!! I am so sick of this calumny bandied about not only by the liberal rags but by anti-Catholic fellow conservatives. Those people labeling themselves ‘Catholic’ are as ‘Catholic’ as Nancy Pelosi. She has excommunicated herself (latae sententiae) by her formal cooperation in abortion through her votes, even if her bishop hasn’t had the guts to do it publicly, and the vast majority of the Obama voting ‘Catholics’ are Easter and Christmas and wedding ‘Catholics’. They haven’t been to confession in about 30 years and reject most of what The Church teaches. You can’t do that and be ‘Catholic’! So please stop calling them that.

The majority of Faithful active/Mass going ‘Catholics’ voted Republican. My child’s parochial school had an ‘election’ on Election Day, and the vote was something like 97%-3% Romney with possibly a couple Ron Paul voters.

And while the USCCB has been an unmitigated disaster in the recent past, the liberal/progressive/Marxist liberation theology warped bishops are quickly being replaced by Orthodox bishops. Deo Gratias! And thank you, Pope Benedict XVI.

I never heard or saw my bishop campaign for Obamacare, but he has had every priest in his diocese announce that we must pray an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be after every weekend Mass for a renewed respect for the Sanctity of Human Life and protection of our religious freedoms since well before the election.

We Catholics are not your enemy.

John 17

pannw on February 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

God Bless Pannw.

:)

Now is not the time for us to engage in the old Papists v Luther & Calvin.

Pagans engage us in an ancient battle.

Americans need to bind together to Protect our Constitutional Way of Life for future generations.

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.” – Ben Franklin

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Since when did the Executive branch get the ability to decide which individuals or institutions get to exercise their first amendment rights? And I love this one:

which then has to offer no-cost contraceptive care to the employees directly.
“no-cost contraceptive care” isn’t insurance at all, it’s just another government give away, this time to the promiscuous.

tommyboy on February 5, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Since “The ONE” won and Chief Justice Roberts didn’t invalidate OMABAcare like he should have…

I feel that the only hope is in the States not participating in the exchanges, and just inertia killing the program…

Khun Joe on February 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM

We Catholics are not your enemy.

John 17

pannw on February 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Thanks.

I’m sick of this anti-Catholic bias.

itsspideyman on February 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Agreed and very well said.

PatriotGal2257 on February 5, 2013 at 11:50 AM

“Elections don’t trump the Bill of Rights.”

Lefties and socialists think they do, just as long as they agree with the trumping.

It’s not fascism when they do it.

farsighted on February 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Elements of Obamacare meet the Church’s requirement for social justice — the acts of a government to meet the needs of the poor. Others certainly do not.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Even the doctrine of a saint (in this case St. Augustine) can be hijacked by Disciples of Machiavelli.

Disciples of Machiavelli have been hijacking our founding fathers for decades…

In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
Saint Augustine

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Any time the concept of “social justice” is divorced from purely voluntary, individual efforts (whether done in concert with others or not) it has nothing to do with biblical Christianity. Christ never defined compassion as giving away someone else’s money nor did he countenance the sacrifice of the 10th commandment against coveting on the alter of political justice.

tommyboy on February 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM

“Elections don’t trump the Bill of Rights.”

“What do you mean they don’t?”

- 0bama

Ward Cleaver on February 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Any time the concept of “social justice” is divorced from purely voluntary, individual efforts (whether done in concert with others or not) it has nothing to do with biblical Christianity. Christ never defined compassion as giving away someone else’s money nor did he countenance the sacrifice of the 10th commandment against coveting on the alter of political justice.

tommyboy on February 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Amen. As my godfather said when I came onto the Church 16 years ago (he’s an old friend of mine), “Watch out for the P&Js.”

/P&J – Peace and Justice

Ward Cleaver on February 5, 2013 at 12:01 PM

haven’t watched fox in years. who is this guy?

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Seriously?
Embarrassing to admit publicly to such astounding ignorance.

Curmudgeon on February 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Leftists have no shame.

Solaratov on February 5, 2013 at 12:08 PM

[workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:08 AM]

You have a good argument, but you miss his point about what the problem is. The mandate essentially violates free will and secondarily that of the right of property and religious belief. It wasn’t necessarily that your ancestors were deprived of freedom of religion, but that they were deprived of free will, and in that specific instance the freedom of religion.

So it goes here. Thanks to John Roberts, the state has finally crushed the free will argument to death and we’re left with quibbling about it on religious grounds, speciously, in Commodore’s view, since it tends to leave open a claim that one can invalidate any law on religious belief grounds.

I don’t mean to say commodore’s point about the claim is valid in most circumstances, but it’s there now. Anyway, the main argument isn’t religious, it a free will argument, and, to my mind, as has been shown by so many aspects, application by whim and caprice with exceptions and lower limits to application, limits to the religious beliefs test, waivers and the like.

Dusty on February 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM

The trampling of religious freedom aside, note the federal government can dictate at its whim, in this case Dear Leader’s whim, without explicit legislative approval, what private health insurance companies must cover in their policies.

That’s what dictators and tyrants can do.

farsighted on February 5, 2013 at 12:14 PM

haven’t watched fox in years. who is this guy?

renalin on February 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM

This is your contribution to the discussion? Admitting that you have no idea what’s going on? Remind me not to rely on you for information or enlightenment.

jakev on February 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM

So, Fox News is the fountain of knowledge now? I haven’t watched that network since they wound up with egg splattered all over their faces after the election, and I haven’t missed them. Except for Krauthammer, but I can catch him on clips right here. Fox News may be “fair and balanced” compared to MSNBC, but that’s not saying much. I don’t even watch news on tv anymore; can’t stomach it. Instead, I turn my attention to blogs like this one. Besides, the “commentary” is far more entertaining.

HiJack on February 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM

[workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 11:08 AM]

You have a good argument, but you miss his point about what the problem is. The mandate essentially violates free will and secondarily that of the right of property and religious belief. It wasn’t necessarily that your ancestors were deprived of freedom of religion, but that they were deprived of free will, and in that specific instance the freedom of religion.

So it goes here. Thanks to John Roberts, the state has finally crushed the free will argument to death and we’re left with quibbling about it on religious grounds, speciously, in Commodore’s view, since it tends to leave open a claim that one can invalidate any law on religious belief grounds.

I don’t mean to say commodore’s point about the claim is valid in most circumstances, but it’s there now. Anyway, the main argument isn’t religious, it a free will argument, and, to my mind, as has been shown by so many aspects, application by whim and caprice with exceptions and lower limits to application, limits to the religious beliefs test, waivers and the like.

Dusty on February 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Well…as I see it the legal argument is Unalienable Rights & Religious Liberty protected under the US Constitution.

Justice Roberts ruled based on the congressional power to levy taxes.

The Religious Protection Argument has not come before the Court yet.

That said…Justice Roberts is an ass who gave unprecedented power to the unregulated IRS…imho

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Well…as I see it the legal argument is Unalienable Rights & Religious Liberty protected under the US Constitution.

Justice Roberts ruled based on the congressional power to levy taxes.

The Religious Protection Argument has not come before the Court yet.

That said…Justice Roberts is an ass who gave unprecedented power to the unregulated IRS…imho

[workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM]

Yes, I understand that is how you see it: if it’s specifically identified in the Constitution, it’s “protected”. That is the exact reason why the socialists continue to play word games and develop concepts to get around your limited view of your rights.

Dusty on February 5, 2013 at 12:33 PM

The trampling of religious freedom aside, note the federal government can dictate at its whim, in this case Dear Leader’s whim, without explicit legislative approval, what private health insurance companies must cover in their policies.

That’s what dictators and tyrants can do.

[farsighted on February 5, 2013 at 12:14 PM]

Note also Dear Leader can determine new economic principles, like when a product or service has an actual a cost associated with it.

Dusty on February 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Well…as I see it the legal argument is Unalienable Rights & Religious Liberty protected under the US Constitution.

Justice Roberts ruled based on the congressional power to levy taxes.

The Religious Protection Argument has not come before the Court yet.

That said…Justice Roberts is an ass who gave unprecedented power to the unregulated IRS…imho

[workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM]

Yes, I understand that is how you see it: if it’s specifically identified in the Constitution, it’s “protected”. That is the exact reason why the socialists continue to play word games and develop concepts to get around your limited view of your rights.

Dusty on February 5, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Really?

I was discussing the Legal Merits of this religious liberty case as it heads to the Supreme Court.

But thanks for pointing out to me how limited I am in understanding my unalienable rights.

Very Charitable of you….I am transformed…

“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” – Ben Franklin

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Well…as I see it the legal argument is Unalienable Rights & Religious Liberty protected under the US Constitution.

Justice Roberts ruled based on the congressional power to levy taxes.

The Religious Protection Argument has not come before the Court yet.

That said…Justice Roberts is an ass who gave unprecedented power to the unregulated IRS…imho

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Bingo. Been arguing this here at HA for years. Establishment Clause and Equal Protection. Liberty University.

txmomof6 on February 5, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Really?

I was discussing the Legal Merits of this religious liberty case as it heads to the Supreme Court.

But thanks for pointing out to me how limited I am in understanding my unalienable rights.

Very Charitable of you….I am transformed…

“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” – Ben Franklin

[workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM]

Yeah, really. The rights are not enumerated for their protection. There are there as a warning not to violate. They are not guaranteed by the Constitution, they are acknowledged as rights the government has not the power to regulate.

Your rights are already infringed by having to discuss the legal merits you note and while it may to some extent require occasional debate among individuals, the individual is already fully burdened when one is forced to debate it with the state.

An individual right is not actually achieved when the individual is persistently forced exercise, insist on or refer to that right. – ME

Dusty on February 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

More broadly, it’s a demonstration of how difficult it is to defeat big government.

We need to run our own Alinsky type operation in order to collapse the program. I for one have stopped fretting about Obamacare or the cost. I fully intend to take full advantage of everything I have coming under the new health care law whether I need it or not. After all, it’s “free”. I even intend to take my full allotment of free birth control even though it’s no longer needed within my family. Oh yes. I’m gonna take every last dollar of benefits I have coming to me and I urge you all to do the same. I know it will be tough thinking about how we are ruining it for the future generations but I believe it will cost less doing it this way than allowing the law to run its natural course. Working together we can collapse it a lot sooner.

JohnnyL on February 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Elements of Obamacare meet the Church’s requirement for social justice — the acts of a government to meet the needs of the poor. Others certainly do not.

unclesmrgol on February 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I don’t know where the Catholic Church gets this foolish notion that the government is supposed to provide for the poor, if that’s an accurate description of their doctrine. The church is supposed to help the poor, as are individuals. But even that much is an overstatement. We are called on to help those truly in need, but not necessarily those who could help themselves.

The Bible actually contains the words, “If any will not work, neither should he eat,” specifically to clarify that the churches are NOT obligated to support those who are able to work but just don’t want to.

In context: 2 Thes 3:10-12

10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would
not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working
not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ,
that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

tom on February 5, 2013 at 9:35 PM

I don’t know where the Catholic Church gets this foolish notion that the government is supposed to provide for the poor, if that’s an accurate description of their doctrine.
tom on February 5, 2013 at 9:35 PM

It’s not an accurate description of official Church teaching.

At this link is a concise description and history of Catholic Teaching on Charity.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03592a.htm

workingclass artist on February 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM