However, that’s only going to happen if the Senate passes the HCCRA and Barack Obama signs it. That’s unlikely, especially in stand-alone form, although it might have a slightly better chance as an amendment on some legislation that Democrats really want.

I would like to outlaw the practice of mash-up legislation altogether.
Despite its “usefulness” in passing good (and bad) laws, it muddies the water of accountability, since it is not immediately transparent (especially to the not-politically-active-voters) as to which part of a multiple-subject bill a particular representative or senator is voting for or against.

WASHINGTON, March 1, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest announced that AUL filed its seventh amicus curiae brief defending First Amendment Freedom of Conscience against the Obama Administration’s “HHS mandate,” which forces employers to provide insurance coverage for life-ending drugs and devices in violation of the employers’ consciences and religious beliefs…

The stupidity is strong in this one.

chemman on March 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I guess every forum needs a fool to provide entertainment, much like the medieval courts of olde.

Are religious institutions also Constitutionally guaranteed federal funding? Look if you want to suck off the government teat you have to follow government regulations. Period, end of story. libfreeordie on March 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Huh, I’m just a lowly Christian who doesn’t suck on any govt teats, I just don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s rubbers. Am I allowed not to do that? Pretty please?

House GOP to propose religious-conscience protection bill today

And I thought the Constitution covered this.

Oh well.

Electrongod on March 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

My thought exactly.

Hasn’t this already been done? How many times does it take?

The case is heading to SCOTUS.

Whether this bill passes or not this issue will be a factor in both upcoming elections and cases headed to SCOTUS.

workingclass artist on March 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM

As it should. Back when life was more ‘normal’ I would not have worried. But given how SCOTUS ruled on O-Care, it’s safe to say a completely wacked decision might come from on high.

What the left is doing is under the table dismantling of our rights.

We shouldn’t need a bill to exempt anyone because of their beliefs, but since the left doesn’t ‘honour’ the Constitution and does everything it can to undermine it, we have to have new legislation to protect our protected rights.

Meanwhile, what else is going on elsewhere?

I am glad these R’s are taking this on…

I hope we win this one.

0bama cares nothing but about himself his agenda and who won/wins.

Does anyone seriously think the Senate or the guy residing in the WH would ever pass this or any single piece of it, even if it’s stealthily attached to a blanket amnesty bill?

Come on people. The Senate and Prez would have the appearance of ‘losers’ when the Prez could have appeared as the ‘winner’ by making accommodations at any time since O care was passed. He’s had ample opportunity and he and they love looking beneficent and reasonable.

Abortion is the left’s golden calf. They want the practice of it ubiquitous through forcing it on everyone in any manner according to their dictates. They want control over how we think about abortion, how we think about access to abortion and how we think about those who oppose the entitlement and ‘rightness’ that they believe is abortion.

Passage of this bill or anything like it would be the loss of that control.

LetsBfrank on March 5, 2013 at 11:31 AM

The case is heading to SCOTUS.

Whether this bill passes or not this issue will be a factor in both upcoming elections and cases headed to SCOTUS.

Are religious institutions also Constitutionally guaranteed federal funding? Look if you want to suck off the government teat you have to follow government regulations. Period, end of story.

libfreeordie on March 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM

1 in 6 Hospital Beds in this country are in Catholic Charity Hospitals.

Many of these service rural areas where they are the only medical service institution.

End of Story.

Dismantling the Protections of the Constitution at the State Level and the Federal Level.

Look what’s happening in MN…and What does other public resources mean?

That’s H.F. No. 826, which requires schools — including private schools that get any “public funds or other public resources” — to ban, among other things, “bullying” at school, defined as

use of one or a series of words, images, or actions, transmitted directly or indirectly between individuals or through technology, that a reasonable person knows or should know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of interfering with the ability of an individual, including a student who observes the conduct, to participate in a safe and supportive learning environment. Examples of bullying may include, but are not limited to, conduct that:

1. places an individual in reasonable fear of harm to person or property, including through intimidation;
2. has a detrimental effect on the physical, social, or emotional health of a student;
3. interferes with a student’s educational performance or ability to participate in educational opportunities;
4. encourages the deliberate exclusion of a student from a school service, activity, or privilege;
5. creates or exacerbates a real or perceived imbalance of power between students;
6. violates the reasonable expectation of privacy of one or more individuals; or
7. relates to the actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color, creed, religion, national origin, immigration status, sex, age, marital status, familial status, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, academic status, disability, or status with regard to public assistance, age, or any additional characteristic defined in chapter 363A of a person or of a person with whom that person associates, but the conduct does not rise to the level of harassment.

First, what does interfering with “the ability of an individual … to participate in a … supportive learning environment” mean, exactly? Say that students are talking over lunch about how a classmate committed a crime, cheated, said racist things, treated his girlfriend cruelly, or whatever else,, which causes people to feel hostile towards the classmate. That interferes with his ability “to participate in a … supportive learning environment.” Presumably that’s now forbidden, right?

Second, what on earth does “creat[ing] or exacerbat[ing] a real or perceived imbalance of power between students” mean? What kind of power? Social power? Financial power? Power within student-run institutions, such as clubs or businesses that students set up?…”

http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/04/minnesota-bill-to-ban-k-12-speech-that-denies-fellow-students-a-supportive-environment/

Force a vote in the senate. It will never pass the senate but if it did then Bark has to actually vote other than present.
acyl72 on March 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Pocket veto, anyone?
BobMbx on March 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Exactomundo – if the bill gains traction and public support, the prez can get Harry to pass it less than 10 days before adjournment (summer break, etc?). Then the prez ‘forgets’ to sign it because he’s busy in Hawaii or something… POCKET VETO!

Are religious institutions also Constitutionally guaranteed federal funding? Look if you want to suck off the government teat you have to follow government regulations. Period, end of story.

libfreeordie on March 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM

They are guaranteed federal funding to the exact same extent that a non-religious institution doing work identical to the given mission would be. That’s part and parcel of the First Amendment.

Also, the reason religious institutions are not taxed in the same way as non-religious institutions is rooted in that same First Amendment. An organization whose mission is religious is shielded from taxes which might harm the organization.

As for “sucking off the Government teat”, my church distributes food to all comers (or, rather, people holding coupons given by the county). We receive surplus food, bag it, and give each bag to anyone who shows up with a coupon — no questions asked. Some of that surplus food comes from the Government, some from private parties. Now, should we as a result be required to offer contraception or abortions as well to those packing the food, even though they might not be Catholic — just because our mission here (feeding the poor) corresponds to one the Government also wants performed?

Again, it’s that pesky First Amendment, saying that the Government cannot put undue restrictions on the practice of one’s religion. Now, undue restrictions is kind of weaselly, but I would expect that a restriction which hasn’t been present for over 200 years, and which some Democrats who weren’t even elected think ought to be in place, certainly is, prima facie, undue. Obamacare was found Constitutional on the basis of the commerce clauses — for that was the only argument against it made by its foes the first time around. Now comes the First Amendment argument, and we shall see how that goes.

Are religious institutions also Constitutionally guaranteed federal funding? Look if you want to suck off the government teat you have to follow government regulations. Period, end of story.

libfreeordie on March 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM

The stupidity is strong in this one.

I agree. So when parts of the government does not follow said documents, what can we do?

astonerii on March 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Tar and feathers or lampposts and hemp come to mind.

Come on people. The Senate and Prez would have the appearance of ‘losers’ when the Prez could have appeared as the ‘winner’ by making accommodations at any time since O care was passed. He’s had ample opportunity and he and they love looking beneficent and reasonable.

Abortion is the left’s golden calf. They want the practice of it ubiquitous through forcing it on everyone in any manner according to their dictates. They want control over how we think about abortion, how we think about access to abortion and how we think about those who oppose the entitlement and ‘rightness’ that they believe is abortion.

Passage of this bill or anything like it would be the loss of that control.

Or Democrat ‘mothers’ on welfare.

MelonCollie on March 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Hence the Left’s demolition of the family and marriage.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume this doesn’t apply to illegal aliens.

CurtZHP on March 5, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Or Democrat ‘mothers’ on welfare.

Look if you want to suck off the government teat you have to follow government regulations.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume this doesn’t apply to illegal aliens.

House GOP to propose religious-conscience protection bill today

And I thought the Constitution covered this.

Oh well.

Electrongod on March 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Your point was my understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, too.

The attacks on our fundamental rights and freedoms from government intrusion go on unabated by the Left. They threaten free speech, religious practice, gun rights, property rights, etc.

When I was a youngster in school, albeit with a Catholic education, we learned that there were three legs to societal framework: the family, the church, and the state. The Left continue to attack and undermine the first two in order to give power to the last.

There is something wrong with granting Obysmalcare waivers to practicing Amish and Muslims (who view having insurance as a form of gambling just as they do the Western form of banking that gives interest for savings or charges interest for borrowing). There is not equal protection under such a coercive law.