My twin granddaughters were born in a Catholic hospital last December. On Christmas Eve, they were rushed back into that same hospital, fighting for their lives. For nine days, we prayed without ceasing for their recovery. Protestants don’t usually do Novenas. This one did. Happily, the twins were released earlier this month.
Our family trusted a Catholic hospital with the lives of those most precious to us. Catholic hospitals have the latest technology in their pediatric intensive care units (PICU). But they have something more: They have an unwavering commitment to the sanctity of human life.
The night the twins were born, the holiday lights came on at their hospital. When the girls get older, we’ll tell them the lights were really lit for Jesus. But for now, we believe those lights were burning for our stricken newborns, and for all the dear children who spent their Christmas in the PICU.
The Obama administration is threatening the very life of Catholic hospitals. This administration wants to compel these hospitals to join the culture of death by forcing them to provide insurance coverage for their employees for sterilization and drugs that cause abortions. In so doing, the Obama administration violates not only the conscience rights of practicing Catholics, but also the conscience rights of millions of “separated brethren,” protestants like us, who rely on Catholic health care to uphold the sanctity of life.
#page#How radical is the Obama administration? Franklin D. Roosevelt was the most liberal president in our history. A Democrat, FDR would have found most Catholics practicing in those hospitals — and the patients being treated in them — among his warmest supporters.
So beloved by Catholics was FDR, and so many of them Irish, that it was said the president’s rolodex looked like the Dublin phonebook. FDR would not have dreamed of so violating conscience rights of Catholics.
John F. Kennedy was our first Catholic president. He never came close to such a gross violation of conscience. Nor did LBJ, who enacted Medicare.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton never did anything so radical as what President Obama is now trying to do. He’s not just out of step with conservatives and Republicans, he’s completely out of line with the best traditions of his own Democratic party.
When I served in the Washington office of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, we knew that if the Catholic Church’s conscience rights could be trodden on, our rights would not be respected long.
All Americans have a stake in this conflict. The Obama administration views pregnancy as a disease, and they want to force all of us to see it as a disease, too. They view this great human blessing as a curse. No wonder we are at odds with them over this menacing move.
This “unconscionable” move — as New York’s Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan calls it– must be resisted by all Americans who value our God-given rights of conscience. On this vital question, there should be no separation among us. The Lord we serve came that we may have life and have it abundantly. We must resist any connection with the culture of death.
— Robert Morrison is a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council. He formerly served as Executive Director of the Office of Government Information of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod in Washington, D.C.
Catholic hospitals are fighting to maintain control over their employees reproductive lives by having them contribute to health insurance, but NOT health insurance that would be what those employees would choose. They are trying to make it harder for female employees to exercise their own choices over their reproductive lives by making it a larger financial burden on them to do so.
Who is against freedom? The person most working to impact the choices of individuals is not the government, which is trying to ensure that people have health plans that allow them such freedom. It is the Catholic Church, which has always been a bigger proponent of control than of life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat no one talks about is what about the baby? Liberals love to talk about a woman's choice as if she was deciding whether or not to remove a tumor. There is another life at stake that liberals fail to mention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo one is forced to work for a Catholic hospital, a Catholic School or a Catholic Charity. Why should I be forced to pay for sterilization or abortifacient morning-after pills? Why should I or other Catholics be compelled to abet moral wrongdoing? When (if) euthanasia becomes enacted as part of Obamacare, should I be forced to pay for my own unwilling death? You are morally blind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's called insurance. People pay into a pool. Just because you are paying into a pool, or the employer buying the plan as part of employee compensation, does not mean you have the moral right to micromanage someone else's health care.
Should Muslim organizations be allowed to refuse to cover organ transplants or blood transfusions? What about atheist organizations that don't believe in a soul? Should they be allowed to refuse to purchase health insurance that keeps people in a vegetative state (which many humanists believe to be an insult to human dignity). Should organizations that work against population growth be allowed to bar any coverage for obstetric and pediatric services?
Once we open the door to letting every employer pick and choose what health care they do and do not think their employees should be allowed to have, we have a mess. If the Catholic Church believes they have such a good moral case, they should convince their employees NOT to use birth control. They shouldn't try to force their hands by insisting they get bad health insurance.
As a Quaker, I have happily paid my taxes, which include payments for wars I find morally repugnant and go against my religion, without all this kvetching. We live in a society, and try as you might, you just can't control everything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a Quaker, had you found yourself inducted into national service, you could have opted out of combat as a conscientious objector. Alternate, non-combat duties would have been found for you to perform. As well as it should be. Not so for the Catholics here and now, it seems.
The Catholic hospitals (corporations one and all) are being compelled to go against their religious sensibilities. If corporate entities have first amendment rights to spend money on political campaigns as an exercise of free speech, should they not have first amendment rights to freely exercise their religion as well?
Your taxation straw man is not similar, because a long and consistent set of legal precedents have ruled, rightly, that individual taxpayers have no say in how their porion of taxmoney is spent. Nor do they have any way of proving with any degree of accuracy that their dollars were spent on something they didn't want it spent on. The only way you could prove that assertion would be to establish unequivocaly that you provided sufficient revenue to the government that the sum total of all government expenditures made in areas that did not violate your personal belief system was exceeded by the amount you paid in taxes. All else is, as you say, simply water in the pool.
Catholic Health care corporations can unequivocally point to their actual money being spent to provide services in direct contravention of their close held beliefs. There is nothing hypothetial about it, as your Quaker funding for war would be. They would be forced to pay a premium for insurance which included coverage for services they would not otherwise pay for, and the various and sundry underwriters could tell you to the thousandth of a penny exactly how much of that premium cost was funding those services.
I am curious how health insurance that doesn't fund abortion or contraception qualifies as bad health insurance on it's face, as you assert. But, regardless, I am at a loss as to what allows the federal government to compel ANY employer to purchase ANY insurance for any of their employees? Maybe there is a clause in the Quaker version of the constitition that maybe I missed, but as near as I can tell, at best, the only governmental agency that might well have such power would be the various state governments, not the Federal one (and that would be something of a stretch, but I guess you could argue that the inherent power of the various states to look out for the health and welfare of their citizens, coupled iwth the Tenth Amendment's relegation of all powers not otherwise enumerated (to the Federal government) to State governmental control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobody is restricting the employees' ability to obtain contraception or the horror of abortion. Their choices are completely unimpeded.
The hospital is simply not going to pay for what they do not consider a benefit.
The cost of contraception is extremely reasonable. Perhaps 10% of the cost of my cell phone? Certainly only a fraction of my cable TV, or about the cost of a drive-through meal.
If the employee is that financially stressed, they can obtain contraception at no or low-cost. I know you can, I did when I was young and really broke and promiscuous - I got contraception at almost zero dollars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI very much support Mr. Morrison's approach, and as a Lutheran pastor, I too share the concerns of the Roman Catholic Church.
I do however think the RC Church is making an error in trying to paint this issue as US v. RC Church. It is not. It is the activist Obama administration against the First Ammendment of the US Constitution and as such this issue should be of intense concern to ALL Christians and all peoples of any faith, Christian or not.
It is also ironic to note, as did a friend to me this morning, that the RC Church is reaping what it sowed when it advocated so strongly for socialized medicine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRev. McCain,
As a Roman Catholic and staunch independent conservatarian, I agree that the RC Church did reap what it sowed. It played with the scorpion and got stung.
I'm surprised that the Church is still into "social justice" issues, after Blessed John Paul II put his foot down about "liberation theology" as being nothing more than communism in the Church.
Perhaps he was not clear enough in his meaning.
I think the problem with well-meaning churches of any denomination is that they think that because they are directed by Christ to help the poor, that somehow this means they should stand by the gov't when it tries to impose things on us that will ALLEGEDLY help the poor.
The Church does this with illegal immigration as well, probably because so many of them are Hispanic Catholics.
However, the Church does a disservice to them by being complicit in their breaking of the law. Jesus did say to render onto Caesar what is Caesar's - I think he would tell those illegals to comply with that earthly law and he would only ask that we, as human beings, treat them humanely, despite their transgressions.
In any event, thank you for your support. It is more than a Catholic issue, but this is the first shot over the bow, so to speak. But if we all stand up together, Christians, Jews, etc., we can send a message to Obama that our First Amendment rights are sacred and will NOT be trampled upon by him or any other gov't official.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso: catholics are forced to pay taxes, which are then used to prosecute wars that the Pope has declared wrong, and to execute prisoners, which the Pope has said is against church doctrine.
Why no hue and cry from the 'religious freedom' folks about Catholics being forced to support a justice system that executes people?
I am a Quaker. I am also forced to pay taxes, that are used to prosecute wars that my religion teaches are against God. Why should I be forced to support the wholesale wiping out of the lights of God? Isn't that a far bigger deal than birth control for some middle aged nurses?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSir, I think Obama's agenda is clear here: if the Catholic institutions resist, he can levy enormous fines and prosecute, i.e, put them out of business. Their assets will then be seized on the grounds that all those schools and hospitals are essential. They will continue running under government control.
On the other hand, if the Catholics surrender, Obama will not hesitate to turn his attention to other denominations, making similar non-negotiable demands that violate their core teachings. The prosecution and seizure cycle will be repeated.
Either way, in the end, a Christianity that is reduced to a vestigial state, as in the Soviet Union or China, will serve his "progressive" agenda quite well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI absolutely agree that you don't have to be Catholic to defend the conscience rights of Catholic organizations. Today's Ninth Circuit ruling is a terrific example of why that should be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Catholics are as not as pure on this notion as they would have you believe.
External Link
I don't believe the government should be dictating contraception, but it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. The government has no business decreeing that private parties should be forced to provide anything. But that is a battle we apparently gave up on a long time ago.
Still, where are all the liberals who never get tired of reminding us there there is "Constitutional separation of Church and State"?
Apparently, Obama and Sebelius have discovered something in the fine print which makes it perfectly ok for the State to dictate to religions what do do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan I be honest? Why have I read several articles that make it sound as if other denominations don't stand with the Catholics in this? I know I certainly do, as would any of my friends. Perhaps, we can encourage pastors to speak out at the pulpit the way the priests are doing, but beyond that I'm hard-pressed to think of too many Protestants or Mormons that wouldn't agree wholeheartedly with and support the Catholics. In all seriousness, what else could I do to show my support for them? Because I would love to do whatever it takes. This is an absolutely egregious decision from the Obama administration and just shows why they must be stopped.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince you said you would like to help, here you go!
The USCCB website has a link which enables you to (very easily) send messages to all your senators and your representative. I provide a link below,but if that doesn't work you can go to the USCCB website and look at the HHS response story. they are also asking us to pray, fast, and contact the White House.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs this our krystallnacht?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a self admitted Lutheran heretic, I stand with Mr. Morrison.
This isn't just an encroachment on the (Catholic) church, it's an assault on all of us. Wendy's Hamburgers used to offer abortion only for the "big three" (rape, incest, life of the mother) but offered credits for adoption. This reflected Dave Thomas' beliefs. The Obamination of HCR would deny him the right to reflect his beleifs in his business.
There's no 'right' to another person's labor. Nor is there a 'right' to tell others how to promote their beliefs.
Aside: I see Mr. Morrison is Missouri Synod. Anyone who knows Missouri Synod (and Wisconsin Synod) knows how important this is when they/we stand with the Catholics on something. ;-)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only reason a Catholic hospital will be paying (very indirectly through its premimum payments) is because the women who worked so hard for those babies deserve the same insurance coverage as women who work for babies in public hospitals. It would violate their religious freedom to impose upon them a stricture of another person's faith. If the church is a body of believers, and almost all of those believers use contraception and need coverage for it, exactly whose religious freedom is being violated by requiring equal benefits for employees of Catholic hospitals?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat in the heck is wrong with freedom? If they don't like the benefit package of their employer, they should work elsewhere. It's not the job of the federal government to force one-size-fits-all solutions to every social issue that pops up in the country.
Sheesh!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe constitution promises much more than freedom of worship; it guarantees the free exercise if religion. That means faith in action, unrestricted by the secular state. Furthermore, ministry is not the purpose of a church or faith, it is its means of outreach to the unchurched and consolidation of those with a marginal attachment to the faith. It is how the faith is to be His "witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth".(NIV)
Denominational charities, hospitals, schools and universities, and even the churches themselves do not exist mainly to serve their members, parishioners, attendees, students, clients or beneficiaries. They are definitely not social clubs. They exist so that a faith might gain more adherents, and so that its doctrines might carry more influence, both in the lives of the faithful and in the public square, so that from their point of view, society might change for the better.
Demanding that Catholics, and eventually others, either sell out their beliefs and doctrines, or retreat behind cloistered walls, far from the public square and any influence on the everyday world is nothing less than Leviathan demanding as its due that the spiritual world voluntarily let is muscular physical expression in this world through ministry atrophy, so that the state can squeeze the role of spiritual life in the public square. This is boa constrictor politics at its worst - once it starts, if not stopped in its tracks now, all faiths will be vestiges of their former selves.
If we do not fight back now, it will be too late. While I am not Catholic, this is my fight, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a nice Jewish boy who was also born in a Catholic hospital (as were my brothers, and the same hospital, btw, where my dear departed father was so well-cared-for with compassion for LIFE instead of a culture of death in his final days,) I agree. And that hospital, St. John's, is located in the heart of the People's Republic of Santa Monica, California, no less!
Furthermore, in the larger political scheme of things this is not just a Catholic issue in the election. Any sentient person of faith who looks at this mandate must say "Today they did it to Catholics. Tomorrow they may do it to me and mine."
This will lose Obama a lot more votes than just Catholic ones, both from solidarity and constitutionalism AND from fear that we, whatever faith we follow, will be next.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse