“There’s been a lot of talk about the Obama administration’s attack on the Catholic church,” Newt Gingrich said last night, according to CBS News. “Well the fact is, Gov. Romney insisted that Catholic hospitals give out abortion pills against their religious belief when he was governor.”
Rick Santorum made the same argument in an op-ed yesterday.
But as the Romney campaign has pointed out, Romney vetoed the bill that forced Catholic hospitals to give out emergency contraception. Then, the Massachusetts legislature overrode his veto. David French has a detailed explanation of what transpired here.
We'll all have to excuse Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum for their lies:
See, neither one of them has a day of executive experience and they may not understand that a governor or a president's veto may get overrided by the legislature.
That is why they continue to make fools of themselves for blaming Romney for the Mass Legislature's actions.
Gingrich and Santorum are eithe liars or bufoons...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's executive experience dictates that the executive must enforce laws which violate religious liberty once a veto is overridden? There is no other action to be taken? No agency regulation or procedure? No court challenge?
His veto was overridden, what more could I possibly do to protect conscience rights?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseViolations of religious liberty are nothing to get angry about.
When Romney's veto was overridden, what did he do? Did he go public to denounce the legislature? Did he point out that the previous law had allowed exceptions for private providers, and that this provision had not been specifically repealed by the new law?
No. What he did was order religious institutions to follow the new law. In other words, Mitt took the safe and easy course, shrugging his shoulders and using the excuse, "Well, I tried."
Is Mitt a weasel or a wimp? You decide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich Attacks Romney on Contraception
He would.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again Katrina your leaving out what Romney's next statement was regarding what he would not stand in the way of.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure Newt never used condoms with any of his mistresses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich and Santorum are neither liars nor buffoons. They should acknowledge that Governor Romney vetoed, and give him credit. Then they should point out that in a Republican primary, the "executive experience" of running the People's Republic of Taxachusetts gets graded on a curve. Yes, he's been a governor....and he became one by appealing to the most left-wing electorate in the entire United States. And now we're supposed to believe he's Mr. Rockribs. Riiiiight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's a good idea, but not going to happen. The only way for that to happen is for republicans to be more moral than the libs. Not.Gonna.Happen.
Then we wonder why we haven't had a republican govern as a conservative in over a generation. They'll say anything to get elected and have plenty of supporters to apologize for the dishonesty. We get what we deserve.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Gingrich and Santorum are neither liars nor buffoons. They should acknowledge that Governor Romney vetoed, and give him credit. "
So Gingrich and Santorum are ignorant? That's the only choice left, isn't it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney and his administration enforced the law. That is enough to make the charges against him by Gingrich and Santorum true. One can say he had to do so. Did he have to trumpet the fact that his administration was doing so and profess that in his "heart of hearts" he wanted women to have access "emergency contraception"? Have any of his supporters been able to defend him on that quote or his apparent indifference to the difference between contraception and abortifacients? Has Romney's "heart of hearts" changed since then?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAFTER his late-life pro-life conversion, Romney said. "In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.
As Terrence Jeffrey suggested, "A true leader would have said: I will defend the First Amendment right of Catholics to freely exercise their religion — against those who would force them to participate in abortions — all the way to the Supreme Court."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Then, the Massachusetts legislature overrode his veto."
And THEN, Mitt's administration interpreted the law as broadly as possible against conscience objections, and regulated against the interests Mitt had previously stated he supported.
So, in the end, Mitt's administration made the job easier for the enemies of religion, by interpreting the law more broadly than as written.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. Governor Romney must explain how he implemented a law which he believed violated conscience rights. What steps did he take to mitigate against violations? How does he balance his obligation to execute the law with his conscience?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvidence being?
Seems like it's a no-win scenario with the false choice you've created. Either you enforce the law as you're required to and you're an evil enemy of religion, or you don't, and you're an evil dictator bent on ignoring the will of an elected legislative body.
To be perfectly honest given what we've had to endure under the Obama administration's "creative" approach towards the laws as written, you'd think that Romney's history of enforcing the law is something that would be, oh I don't know, desirable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not following this entire argument. Is a Catholic hospital ultimately in the business to administer health care or to minister Catholicism? Are employees of religiously-affiliated businesses - profit or non-profit - required to have the same religious affliliation and adhere to the strict tenets of that religion? Is there a state in the union that would permit such discrimination in hiring based on religious grounds?
If a religious organization is not permitted to discriminate against applicants having other religious (or non-religious) beliefs, why should they be permitted to discriminate against employees whose health care choices do not conform to their tenets as well?
This is not about forcing people to use contraception (a la Gov. Perry's Gardasil fiasco).
This is about individual employees being allowed to make their own health care choices - which I thought was at the heart of the whole anti-Obamacare argument.
Or is the free market only acceptable when it's not trumped by a particular religious dogma?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this is the heart of the problem. A community can only support a few hospitals - many have only one - so hospitals get regulated like public utilities. What makes a hospital Catholic? They have the same doctors and patients as any other hospital. If you're sick you're going to go to the nearest hospital. If you're a doctor you're going to work at the hospital near your home.
The only thing Catholic about these hospitals is their owner. If the Catholic church decides to invest in the stock market that wouldn't make those companies "Catholic." A house of worship or religious institution that buys a bank, or a car wash or a hospital is choosing to enter into non-religious activities and is choosing to deal with the regulations those activities entail.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt does not follow that because a religious institution does the same work as a non-religious institution that the work is a "non-religious activity." Running hospitals is part of one of the Catholic faith's Corporal Works of Mercy (caring for the sick), which is a basic obligation if you are Catholic.
To force the Catholic Church out of performing these Works of Mercy is to prevent it from the free exercise of its religion -- a violation of the First Amendment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut as far as I can tell the doctors aren't primarily Catholic, just the board of directors appointed by the church. Is serving on a corporate board "caring for the sick?"
If Catholic doctors were banding together to perform works of mercy in accordance with their faith that would be a religious activity and I would defend their right to not distribute birth control to themselves, their employees and their patients.
But this is owning and administering a hospital - are there really corporal works of mercy that require an MBA?
Catholic hospitals just don't seem very Catholic. I suppose if the church bought a phone company, one could argue that it serves the faith by letting people preach the gospels, but it still would be a phone company, not a religious institution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Catholic hospitals just don't seem very Catholic." Um, have you actually been in one? There are morning and evening prayers read over the intercom, crucifixes and other Catholic iconography in every room, nuns and priests making visits to all patients on a daily basis to offer prayers and communion to those who can't attend Mass and other services offered that are particular to Catholic hospitals. The administration of these hospitals is clearly Catholic. By forcing these hospitals to act contrary their mission and the Vatican's teachings, (or close down, which serves no one), Obama is making a direct assault on religious liberty - it's as simple as that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I would defend their right to not distribute birth control to themselves, their employees and their patients."
No you don't. If you did, you would be opposed to this law, since the law is precisely what would take away this "right".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse