On her Facebook page Tuesday, Sarah Palin posted on “How Obama Repaid Notre Dame.”
There she quotes this from a Michael Gerson column:
In politics, the timing is often the message. On Jan. 20 — three days before the annual March for Life — the Obama administration announced its final decision that Catholic universities, hospitals and charities will be compelled to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients. Preparing for the march, Catholic students gathered for Mass at Verizon Center. The faithful held vigil at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Knights of Columbus and bishops arrived to trudge in the cold along the Mall. All came to Washington in time for their mocking.
I appreciate Gerson’s column — this mandate is, of course, a predictable insult to those who foolishly lent their credibility to him along the way — but his visual about a week ago Sunday and Monday has been gnawing at me.
As someone who was at the morning Verizon Center Mass, the vigil at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the March for Life: These faithful were not mocked. These kids — so many young people — activists and other alarmed citizens are a source of inspiration. Their determination in the face of federal tyranny should get us all doing more. The overwhelming majority of those I spoke to are no fools, not an ounce of political naivete on display. They know the stakes. They were not the ones deluding themselves four years ago into believing the outright lies of a candidate who was already positioned to be the most radical on issues of life, based not only on his promises to his abortion-industry base but on his legislative record.
Besides the crucial work of educating, equipping, and rallying, getting on the same page, in terms of legislation, is — as Ramesh points out — essential. Jeff Fortenberry in the House and Roy Blunt in the Senate have demonstrated long-term leadership with their legislation; may determined and focused teamwork rule the day. The stakes here are too important for it not to.
As readers here have heard before, Notre Dame’s president did a real disservice when he honored President Obama there — a scandalous one. Evil does what it does: It sows confusion, even on a campus where there are beacons, too, as Fr. Wilson Miscamble there can tell you about, since he himself is one.
Palin’s “Repaid” framing is right-on. But those kids who overwhelmed me yet again were not mocked — and should not be lumped in with a university president’s damaging call. And they will not be, if religious liberty is to remain our claim as Americans.
Notre Dame was indeed ugly with it's treatment of GW Bush, and it's lavish overplay of Mr. Obama. Political correctness, local politics, devotion to the mindless Democratic Party, etc., all encouraged the worst.
Unfortunately, we see on the Conservative side, a similar dysfunctional practice which reminds one of high school kids developing social groups designed to hype a few, while they unfairly treat others for acceptance, attention, status.
The question I have today...
Why would Ms. Lopez be still paying attention to the lackluster Mrs. Palin?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYa Sarah... after you continue to flub up regarding the primary & Gingrich, you try to run back to the base of religion. Go home. She's destined to embarrass those who side with her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI continue to be amazed by all this hand-wringing about the federal government mandating that hospitals or other employers cover certain procedures or medication irrespective of the fundamental/religious beliefs of those institutions and employers. Really? That's what writers at NRO are getting worked up over?
How about a problem with ANY federal mandate on the types of insurance that local employers must provide to their employees?
At NRO, we seem to have adopted a strategy that says: OK, mandate what you want for non-religious employers, but requiring Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control for their employees is a bridge too far. instead, shouldn't we be saying the federal government is regulating something it has absolutely no constitutional authority to regulate? Isn't that the problem?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have already discussed the mandates you are referring to ad nauseum. We have discussed them for so long the court case has made it to The Supreme Court. This discussion is about another mandate. Another mandate that directly violates the Constitution. A mandate that requires religions to violate the basic tenets of their religion. It just so happens that the largest religion engaged in the fight over abortion is the Catholic Church which comprises about 20-25% of the population (I know all Catholics aren't pro-life. Some are lost in the wilderness). The fact that Obama was so heavily supported by Catholics is a scandal.
Don't think that the timing of this decree was an accident. They knew the March for Life was going to happen and they chose to throw this new mandate in our face.
What a unifier this man is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We have discussed them for so long the court case has made it to The Supreme Court. "
In the interest of factual accuracy, I would point out that the provisions of Obamacare - and other federal insurance regulations - that are affecting this particular decision are not what's being litigated in the Court right now. What's being litigated is the individual mandate; that is to say the requirement that individuals purchase private health insurance of face a government penalty.
There hasn't been a single case where someone has survived a motion to dismiss that challenges the federal regulation of insurance at any level, and that's the problem.
Of course, we have (literally) reams of federal employment legislation that, in my humble opinion, there's absolutely no constitutional basis for. I don't think it's within the constitutional purview of the federal government to regulate any aspect of local employer/employee relationship. Case-in-point: The federal minimum wage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother thought on these mandates (and I agree with your broader point that the root problem is any mandate). Why is medicine treated differently than any other business? They mandate that hospitals have to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay. They mandate that a Dr/Hospital must accept Medicare/Medicaid which has a reimbursment rate that is below the Doctor's cost! They mandate drugs that a pharmacy must carry (they must carry the abortifacient drugs, regardless of belief). They mandate that healthcare providers no longer have a conscience objection. The fact that hospitals want to find any solution that enables them to be reimbursed is understandable.
Why don't we mandate that furniture has to be sold to old people at 92% of cost and to poor people at 90% of cost. Let's face it, they need furniture also. Let's mandate that houses for old people and poor people are treated the same way. Let's not forget transportation and food. Let's do this to the rest of society and see how long it takes to get the prices high on everything we buy.
The real problem with the Obamacare mandates is they attempt to use a government solution for a problem that was caused by Government (actually, this latest one is not in response to any problem)! End Medicare as we know it, raise the price of coverage to the user and pay the bills. Mandate that the Government can't negotiate with suppliers and must use the negotiated reimbursement rates that HMO's get. This would drive down costs for the rest of us. It will never happen because old people vote and old people are a growing percentage of the population due to medical advances and the baby boomers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo many Catholics eagerly want to believe the secular promise that "social justice" can somehow institutionalize the charity we all desire in ourselves and each other.
But of course, even when government means to perform charity (can it? with other people's money?) it falls prey, by its nature, to politics.
I guess that's why they have to call it "social justice"; to distinguish it from actual justice, which would apply legitimate laws to all persons equally.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must say that I don't see much evidence that Fr. Jenkins is all that upset about how things have turned out. And it is just not very convincing he and other Obama supporters did not know what they were supporting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the well educated Catholic educators are shocked that Obama kinda sorta favors abortion? And the columnists here buy what they are selling? Sorry but, as with many religious "leaders", these Catholics are Dem first, Catholic second.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem I have with the supposed Catholic opposition is that they didn't seem to have a problem with the mandate long as they were not affected by it. The hierarchy doesn't seem to have a clue as to any principle involved other than don't make us pay for abortions. As to the rest of society having to make the payments, they don't give a darn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse