How else to explain the mean-spirited decision mandating that Catholic institutions be required to pay for health insurance that covers sterilization, contraceptives, and the “morning-after pill,” which violates their fundamental religious beliefs?
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius even had the gumption to claimSunday that the “contraception rule respects religion.” On Jan. 20, she insisted she had reached an agreeable compromise, saying the decision “strikes a balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”
What balance? What respect for religious freedom? The administration took religious liberty, a principle on which our country was founded, weighed it against access to contraception, and somehow in its bizarro math, religious freedom lost.
It must really suck to be Kirsten Powers right now, knowing back in 2008 what was in the "Hope and Change Kool-Aid"...and still draining the Dixie Cup anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you would be for giving Muslim Charities the right to not give health coverage to employees who were raped because of their religious freedoms?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's telling that you you think you are being clever with your reddest of red herrings, preposterous comment, when, really you made yourself look ridiculous.
The fact that you've demonstrated the inability to distinguish between the crime of rape and the religious objection to contraception tells more about your intellectual capacity than you are apparently aware of....but, be assured, the rest of us noticed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, that would be religious freedom. Catholic employers can leave out contraceptives, and Muslim employers can leave out rape kits as well as post-rape antiviral meds, therapy, or anything other medical expenses that might result from the woman's rape "infidelity."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot comparable. "Employees who were raped" is person-based discrimination. Not offering a particular coverage is -- not offering a particular coverage.
What other things should employers be forced to give their employees? Cheap car loans? Amazon Prime?
Try again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou actually think they give such health coverage now?
They're more likely to stone the rape victim to death.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, let me get this hypothetical straight. It's hard to discern your meaning with the lack of punctuation.
A Muslim Charity has employees. The Muslim Charity offers to pay for a portion of their health insurance as a condition of employment (a benefit).
One of those employees is raped.
The Muslim Charity chooses to stop paying for a portion of that employee's health insurance because of the rape?
That seems a bit far-fetched. Why would being the victim of a rape make you ineligible for health insurance?
Or, are you saying the Muslim Charity that the victim works for should be forced to pay for the abortion of the pregnancy that results of said rape? Because even this abomination of a ruling wouldn't do that, nullifying your wild hypothetical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA Muslim Charity would be able to stop paying for "day after" pills if the Catholic Church inspired war on birth control wins this battle
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, they would never have ever paid for them to begin with. And to make the employer of a rape victim responsible for the cost of a crime is ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecorvid-- Abortion, like infanticide and euthanasia, is not health care.
And, frankly, the government has no business dictating what type of "health care" anyone should be forced to supply to an employee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTemerity or effrontery or gall, not gumption.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow...when you've lost EJ Dionne and Kirsten Powers, you know you're going to lose this one. I anticipate the administration will reverse this decision and bank on reinstating it in a second term. The goal here is to get these charities and hospitals to stop providing insurance, just as the goal of Obamacare is to get insurance companies and businesses to drop coverage, thus paving the way for yet another "government solution". Obamacare was always meant as a back door to single payer. I only hope the Supreme Court strikes down the whole thing this summer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHHS is not even close to meeting its regulatory and bureaucratic goals that would build a framework for single payer. If Catholic universities dropped health insurance, everyone of its employees would either have to apply for Medicaid or purchase thier own insurance (not likely). The last time I checked, only 24 states are in compliance with HHS regulations.
If religious insitutions dropped health insurance, it would be a disaster for HHS and Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen you are losing the economic and national security arguments this is all you have left. I don't really see this as a winning issue even though you might technically be on the rigtht side of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou cannot serve God and Mammon both.
Is there any doubt as to which Obama serves?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince the existence of god is questionable at very best, it's good that Mammon and not some fairy tale is being served. And it's delicious, I must say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving already co-opted most insitutions (higher education, the media), progressive statists see only two remaining entites that could challenge their hegemony: the military and the Catholic Church. The military is being gutted, and the bureacracy is doing what it can to bring the Church to heel too. Don't think liberals aren't aware of the Church's role in bringing about regime change in the Soviet Union and Poland.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. The level of delusion in this comment is astounding. There is no conspiracy to take over the Catholic church. What would "liberals" possibly gain from that?
This is a safe political move because it only offends Americans who already disagree with Obama, and could potentially win over some independent female voters. Also, it highlights one of the many conflicts of interest inherent in having a health care system based around employer-providers, which might promote more individuals buying private insurance in the exchange set up by Obamacare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse**So you would be for giving Muslim Charities the right to not give health coverage to employees who were raped because of their religious freedoms?**
If Muslims hire people--just like if any Americans hire people--the worker and the employer should know in advance what the ground rules are. Whether they give good health coverage, lousy coverage, or no coverage, it is of no interest to the federal government. If the employer breaks the agreement, sue. If the employee breaks, fire. (Or in rare cases, sue.)
The government is a neutral third party and, if a case goes to court, can be a fair referee.
Is freedom all that difficult?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh my, a liberal columnist actually uses the phrase "mean spirited" in describing an action of a Democrat administration?
Maybe the Mayans were on to something about the world ending this year after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse