Page 7 of 13 First ... 34567891011 ... Last
  1. #67
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    I had my tubes ties and DH had a vasectomy after out third child because Michael had so many issues. We did discuss this with our family priest and he understood our concerns and didn't see it as a violation of any vows or faith issues.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Obama Administration: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #68
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
    By Doug Powers • May 22, 2012 04:35 PM

    Yesterday, 43 Catholic institutions, including the Archdiocese of New York and Notre Dame University, filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over the contraception mandate’s infringement upon on religious freedom. The plaintiffs have two liberals unexpectedly working on their behalf to win the lawsuit against the Obama administration: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...all-of-mandate
    The biggest legal threat to the White House’s birth control mandate could come from a decades-old law that was championed by liberal Democrats, according to legal experts.

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has been mentioned in nearly all of the more than 30 lawsuits pending against President Obama’s administration over the mandate. One, filed by the University of Notre Dame on Monday, cited RFRA’s protections in the first paragraph.

    Legal scholars see the merit in challenging the mandate with RFRA, which then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced in 1993 to protect religious exercise from laws that might unintentionally restrict it.
    According to the article, the law was introduced nearly 20 years ago after two Native American Church members in Oregon were denied unemployment benefits because they had been fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony (Elizabeth Warren was only allowed a 1/32nd mescaline dose but it still culminated in some pretty good recipes), but now the Kennedy and Schumer’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act might cause this particular provision in Obamacare take a trip and get overturned.

    Related Media Bias Fun Fact: On last night’s ABC, NBC and CBS nightly newscasts, one of the largest (if not the largest) religious lawsuits in American history warranted a grand total of 19 seconds of air time between the three networks. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...ening-news-sho


    **Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/22...dministration/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #69
    pepperpot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    exactly where I should be...
    Posts
    8,566
    Thanks
    4,402
    Thanked 3,793 Times in 2,027 Posts
    one of the largest (if not the largest) religious lawsuits in American history warranted a grand total of 19 seconds of air time between the three networks.
    : What do you expect? It was the season ending to dancing with the stars.....:
    Mrs Pepperpot is a lady who always copes with the tricky situations that she finds herself in....

  5. #70
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Who won ??
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #71
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Shameless Bias by Omission
    By L. Brent Bozell – 5 hrs ago

    You'd think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major news story. But ABC, CBS and NBC don't judge news events by their inherent importance as relates to the future of our freedoms. They deliver the news according to a simple formula: Does it or doesn't it advance the re-election of Barack Obama?

    If it doesn't, it isn't news.

    On May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations sued the Obama administration over its ridiculously narrow idea of how a "religious institution" can be defined under the Obamacare law. Never has the Catholic Church — or any order, for that matter — undertaken something of this magnitude. It's truly jaw-dropping that ABC and NBC completely ignored this action on their evening newscasts, while "CBS Evening News" devoted just 19 seconds to this historic event.

    No, let's be blunt: They spiked the news.

    This is the worst example of shameless bias by omission I have seen in the quarter-century history of the Media Research Center. We recall the Chinese Communists withholding from its citizenry for 20 years the news that the U.S. had landed on the moon because it reflected poorly on their government. Never, never would the U.S. "news" media behave thusly — they just did.

    This is not an honest mistake. It was not an editorial oversight by the broadcast networks. It did not occur too late for the evening deadline. This was a deliberate and insidious withholding of national news to protect the "Chosen One" who ABC, CBS and NBC have worked so hard to elect and for whom they are now abusing their journalistic influence. Even when CBS mentioned the suit — ever so briefly — like so many others, they deliberately distorted the issue by framing it as a contraception lawsuit when it is a much broader religious freedom issue — and they know it.

    This should be seen as a very dark cloud on Obama's political horizon. The Catholic Church, with 60 million Americans describing themselves as Catholic, has unleashed legal Armageddon on the administration, promising "we will not comply" with a health law that strips Catholics of their religious liberty. If this isn't "news," then there's no such thing as news.

    This should be leading newscasts and the subject of special, in-depth reports. So what trumped this story? ABC led their evening broadcast and devoted an incredible 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the sentencing of the Rutgers student who spied on his gay roommate with a web camera. NBC aired an entire story on a lunar eclipse. Both CBS and NBC devoted their first 3 minutes and 30 seconds to prostate-cancer screening.

    Catholic taxpayers who help fund National Public Radio were also ignored on the evening newscast with that sad joke of a title — "All Things Considered."

    If only some deceased priest had been accused of sexual improprieties in 1953 ... then Catholics would be seen as newsworthy. These "news" operations can't argue these are more important stories than the loss of religious freedom in America.

    The print press isn't much better. For the Washington Post, there was a little one-column story buried on page A6. That fish wrap known as USA Today had a really tiny headline and 128-word item at the very bottom of A2. The New York Times had a perfunctory 419-word dispatch on page A17.

    Two pages later, the Times defined as "news" what it prefers to report on Catholics: "2 Philadelphia Priests Punished in Sexual Abuse Cases." The paper noted one priest has been suspended from ministry for two years and the other had been placed on leave in December based on abuse that occurred about 40 years ago. This wasn't really "news" as a current matter, but this is always and everywhere the bigoted narrative the Times prefers to perpetuate.

    Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops used the word "horror" to describe what Team Obama is mandating. On the only broadcast show to give him coverage, CBS "This Morning" anchor Charlie Rose asked Dolan if the White House misled him on this issue. Dolan began by saying he hesitated to question the president's sincerity — even though anyone who heard Obama's 2009 commencement speech at Notre Dame about "honoring the conscience" of his opponents on abortion has proven he is completely insincere.

    The cardinal said, "I worry, Charlie, that members of his administration might not particularly understand our horror at the restrictive nature of this exemption that they're giving us, that for the first time that we can remember, a bureau of the federal government seems to be radically intruding into the internal definition of what a church is. We can't seem to get that across."

    He's not finding much help getting anything across from those supposed "mediators" of the national press corps.

    http://news.yahoo.com/shameless-bias...070000700.html

    comments

    the unemployed have given up and are no longer counted in the statistics, finacial institutes having vanishing wealth that can't be accounted for, religion is being attacked by the secular political leaders {no crosses, no ten commandments, no prayer, pro abortion ... etc.** yet all is well according to our news media, no need to alarm the American people.

    ...

    The progressive TV networks ratings are already too low. They can't cover this one. If they shill for President Obama on this issue, they will lose the few Democrat viewers they have left

    ..

    The "Lame Stream" can no longer be considered a news source because they don't cover the news. All they now do is spew forth spin and tell us what a superb job Obama is doing. According to them the economy is doing well and unemployment is down. They ignore the fact that 6 million have left the work because they have given up on finding work and are no longer counted in the numbers. This is primarily the reason that UE numbers are down. Real unemployment/underemployment is over 18.6%. AMERICA DESERVES BETTER!

    ..

    Main stream news thinks that if they do not cover a story it will not be considered newsworthy. 20-30 yeas ago before the New Media and that much hated Fox News they could get a way with it. Today they can't. The progressives today are 30 years back in time because they STILL believe that if MSNBC NBC etc do not cover a story then the story just didn;t happen! See Fast & Furious.

    As Bozell stated "the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty" is a HUGE story. As big as any election and these dinosaur media is sitting it out giving up to the New Media.

    ...

    There has been no news about the "War Games" in the middle east and the military buildups of 19 nation included in such.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #72
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Outrage Over 72 Hours Of Network Silence On Catholic Lawsuit Spreads To Other Christian Leaders
    By NB Staff | May 24, 2012 | 13:29

    Fury over the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts’ continued refusal to report the lawsuits Catholic entities have filed against the Obama administration has spread beyond the Media Research Center watchdog group and Catholic leaders to nine additional Christian leaders equally concerned about this decision to deliberately not report national news. Below are statements released by FRC’s Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer of American Values and eight more leaders.

    For the third night in a row the broadcast networks have refused to cover this correctly. This momentum is fueled by CBS Evening News’ outrageous decision not only to spike the Catholic lawsuits but instead to lead the news with yet another story about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The broadcast devoted two minutes and 31 seconds to the accused abusers and allegations that occurred decades ago. That’s roughly eight times more coverage than CBS Evening News gave the historic lawsuit on Monday.

    “Those fleeting 19 seconds remain the only evening news coverage of the damning anti-Obama lawsuit in 72 hours since the unprecedented suing by one of the largest institutions in the country,” stated Media Research Center President Brent Bozell. “Make no mistake – CBS intentionally resurrected the decade-old scandal last night while ignoring the lawsuit to throw salt on the wound of America’s 60 million Catholics. The media are holding this historic news hostage from the American people. At least CBS has heard of the word 'Catholic.' ABC and NBC are behaving like the Catholic Church -- and one out of every four Americans -- don’t exist.”

    Statements

    "This week Catholic leaders filed lawsuits responding to an unprecedented federal government intrusion into the church. Several major netwrks have chosen to ignore the stand that these Catholic organizations have taken in defense of our most fundament freedom. However, thousands of priests, pastors, and rabbis will continue to speak out and refuse to surrender their most fundamental right to live and exercise faith without compromise. The church will not allow itself to be conscripted to advance anyone's liberal political agenda."

    ~ Tony Perkins
    President, Family Research Council
    "It is a shame (though hardly surprising) that the mainstream media have virtually ignored the lawsuit by the Catholic bishops and other Catholic institutions against the Obama administration’s unconstitutional assault on religious liberty. With its attempt to force Catholic institutions to purchase healthcare plans with contraceptives and abortifacients, the administration has revealed how willing it is to trample constitutional rights. By ignoring this story, the media’s liberal bias has never been clearer."

    ~ Gary L. Bauer
    Former Presidential Candidate
    President American Values
    Chairman the Campaign for Working Families
    "The media have been irresponsible in ignoring growing problems with President Obama's healthcare law. The violations of First Amendment Rights of Conscience has been an AUL concern throughout this process, and the lack of coverage of this unprecedented intrusion into the life of faith should not be ignored. If any Administration is permitted to force Americans to act against their consciences as a matter of policy, it will change the very fabric of the American way of life. The very real concerns expressed in the Catholic lawsuits should be a major media focus, particularly in this election season."

    ~ Dr. Charmaine Yoest
    President and CEO of Americans United for Life
    "Once again, the mainstream media ignore the news. Now that the Catholic bishops have stood tall, it's the media that fell down and abased themselves before Obama's throne. Obama has declared war on truth, conscience, and the religious liberties that have defined America. If Judeo-Christian values ever had a Valley Forge, the legal action against the HHS mandate is that moment."

    ~ Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
    Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

    ~ Andrea Lafferty
    President, Traditional Values Coalition
    "The controversy over the HHS mandate is not just a Catholic issue, but one that affects people of all faiths, including our Christian schools, as it is a direct attack on the religious liberty that is a vital part of the foundation of our country. Despite the media’s deafening silence on the tremendous outcry over this issue, people of faith will not stand idly by while our religious freedoms are stripped away."

    ~ Dr. Keith Wiebe
    President. American Association of Christian Schools
    “The lack of media attention regarding the 12 law suits that over 40 organizations have filed against the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate is disappointing and yet predictable. The Obama Administration’s assault on religious liberty is not new, but the President has become more bold with every attack, likely because the main stream media has erected a shield of silence to protect him from public scrutiny. Undermining the conscience rights of individuals by requiring people of faith to directly pay for abortion-inducing drugs, despite their religious convictions, Obama has ignited a firestorm among millions of Americans who understand the threats Obama’s mandates pose to our freedom.”

    ~ Mathew Staver
    Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel
    Dean and Professor, Liberty University School of Law
    Director, Liberty Center for Law and Policy
    “The simultaneous filing of more than 40 lawsuits by Catholic institutions against Obama's mandate to suppress religious liberty is one of the biggest news stories of the year. An even bigger news story is that the mainstream media tried to suppress it.”

    ~ Phylls Schlafly
    Founder and President, Eagle Forum
    “With the failure to properly address, or even address at all, the most astounding, massive lawsuit ever filed by religious institutions, the mainstream media has removed any doubt regarding their sold-out allegiance to the party of the Democrats. The mainstream media’s intentional and flagrant disregard of the most monumental legal defense in American history by a religious institution, the Catholic Church, against an overreaching, religious-freedom-usurpation by any U.S. administration shows two things. First, it shows a blind allegiance by the mainstream media to the party and causes of the Democrats that far exceeds adherence to anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity. Second, it shows a disdain, disregard and dismissive attitude of decision makers in the mainstream media toward organized Christian religion. It is indeed a sad time in America for those who admired true journalistic integrity.”

    ~ Rep. Louie Gohmert (R- 1st District of Texas)
    “The Obama Administration’s unprecedented attack on freedom has been met appropriately with an unprecedented response. The mass challenge to the unconstitutional Obama Care mandate filed by Catholic groups this week was the latest in a long list of challenges from faith groups across the country and across the spectrum. These groups – evangelical, Protestant and Catholic – are all united by one purpose: to stop Washington politicians and bureaucrats from punishing people of faith for living according to their convictions. The mainstream media’s resistance to giving these latest lawsuits the proper level and depth of coverage is disappointing, but unfortunately, not surprising. What’s worse is the media’s pervasive and seemingly purposeful distortion of the issue. These suits are not about Catholics and contraception; they are about securing our fundamental freedom, as the legal complaints make abundantly and emphatically clear. It’s time for the media to live up to its responsibility to provide the American people a full, true, and accurate account of what’s at stake in this battle.”

    ~ Gregory Baylor, ADF Senior Counsel
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staf...#ixzz1vpTT1LjD
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 05-24-2012 at 03:47 PM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #73
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    comments

    What we are seeing from the networks is a glimpse into our future if the left-wing continues to influence our way of life. They are traitors to Americans and American values.

    The heads of the networks need to be hauled before a congressional hearing to explain themselves.

    ...

    When the lawsuits from Catholic institutions hit the courts, it will be news that cannot be ignored. Of course the main stream media will spin it into something else. Funny thing about history. When the Pilgrims left Europe to get away from religious intolerance and settled in North America, this became a big thing and religious freedom was celebrated. It appears that 400 years later, the Obama administration wishes to enslave the churches to his teaching and limit the churches' to obey Obama's principles. Please send President Obama copies of "Declaration of Independence for Dummies" and "U.S. Constitution for Dummies."

    ...



    They will all say "We covered it", as they did with the Obama/Jeremiah Wright/Bill Ayers "non-story".

    If the communists don't cover issues they won't have as much history to re-write.

    ..

    Imagine if this had been the biggest law suit in history against the Roman Catholic Church, the media outlets, including Foxnews, would be falling all over each other doing story after story, after story, day after day, after day, after day on the law suit.

    MRC don't stop reporting on this. Keep it on the front burner!

    The United States government, under President Obama, has been hit with the largest law suit of this type in American history. The fact that the media is not reporting it is because they know that law suit has a lot of merit.

    I have Liberal friends who are lawyers who have admitted to me that they are almost sure that the Supreme Court is going to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, either all of it, if not at least the mandate that everyone must buy insurance. If neither one of these happens, they are 100% sure that the government is going to lose the law suits from these Catholic institutions.

    I just wish protestants would join in. They are speaking against this mandate, but I am unsure why evangelicans and other protestants have not joined in the law suits since it affects them too.

    Oh and by the way, I know several Catholic base institutions, schools, organizations that help young boys become great Catholic men through seminars, after school activities, summer camps, etc. who are getting ready to drop health insurance for their employees.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #74
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    May 27, 2012
    Catholic Lawsuits and the Establishment Clause
    By Edward H. Stewart, Jr.

    The other shoe has officially dropped. Forty-three Catholic plaintiffs have brought twelve lawsuits charging that the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate violates their free exercise rights. So perhaps it's time to have some fun with the issues that have been put in play.

    For starters, there's the delicious irony of outfits like Notre Dame getting kicked to the curb as their reward for playing ideological footsie with a president who reeks of liberation theology. Obama's phony offer to let the Catholics off the hook only compounds the irony: health plan providers who took the individual mandate bait are now being strong-armed into offering contraception and abortion coverage "for free." That's a transparent scam because contraceptives and abortions will still be covered in violation of Catholic doctrine, and the cost will be passed through to the Catholics. But the real humdinger is Health and Human Services' claim that we can trust power-crazed bureaucrats to distinguish between church-affiliated organizations with a "secular" mission -- parochial schools, Catholic colleges, Catholic medical centers, and Catholic charities -- and organizations whose mission is the "inculcation of religious values."

    Just to set the record straight, I'm not a Catholic -- but I'm rooting for them, even though I have my doubts about their chances. There's a very good reason why the ACLU and its Supreme Court enablers like William O. Douglas, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Sandra Day O'Connor serve up their free-exercise-for-atheists burgers on establishment clause buns: in an establishment clause dispute, there's no need to prove coercion or present empirical evidence of any kind. Speculation will do just fine. Gin up an advisory opinion that a concealed purpose to endorse religion is trampling non-adherents' free exercise rights, and bingo! -- case closed. No real-world effect need apply.

    Real free exercise suits are a whole different ballgame. To help put the establishment clause on steroids, the Court found it useful to starve the free exercise clause into a kick-sand-in-my-face weakling. So it would be almost shocking to see a free exercise complaint about something besides unemployment benefits -- a social justice issue that pushes its very own progressive hot button -- actually succeed [i]. Given the Court's notorious stinginess in rewarding such quixotic efforts in the name of religion, a win for the Catholics might be downright game-changing, like the new muscles in bodybuilder ads on the back covers of comics when I was a kid.

    It makes perfect sense, then, that our primary source of irony is not the free exercise clause, but progressive establishment clause dogma. For starters, the standard HHS uses to distinguish "secular" from "religious" organizational missions would never pass muster in an establishment clause setting. According to HHS, it's the organization's service to, or employment of, non-Catholics that counts, not its affiliation with the Catholic Church or its devotion to Catholic values. Kathleen Sebelius might as well have grabbed sixty years of progressive establishment clause dogma by the tongue and flicked it inside out. The Court's progressives have spent decades beating it into our heads that precious little -- if any -- evidence of faith is required to establish a purpose to advance religion -- but under the HHS mandate, the "secular" mission magically trumps church affiliation the moment a non-Catholic surgeon is hired or operates on a non-Catholic patient.

    A laughably narrow definition of "inculcate" -- one that mirrors Obama's habitual substitution of "freedom of worship" for "freedom of religion" -- seems to be the cause of this misalignment. If the Supreme Court's progressives have done nothing else, they've worked overtime to sell the notion that virtually any religious expression that might possibly be construed as an "endorsement" of religion "inculcates" religion by coercing religious minorities. So at a bare minimum, for a Catholic medical center to be "secular" by progressive establishment clause standards, it would have to indiscriminately treat and employ not only non-Catholics, but non-Christians; its board of directors could not be dominated by -- or possibly even include -- members of the Church hierarchy; it could not accept financial assistance from or provide financial support to the Church; it could not refuse to prescribe contraceptives or perform abortions and sex-change operations for religious reasons; it could not display a crucifix, a statue of the Virgin Mary, the Ten Commandments, or any other universally recognized Christian symbol; it could not provide a chapel for meditation and prayer; and its employees could not be permitted to mention God or discuss His blessing with patients and their loved ones.

    That's a tough standard, one that leaves precious little room for genuine church-affiliated organizations that don't "inculcate" religious values. But it's not an exaggeration. It's really quite easy for progressives to discover a purpose to "inculcate" religion -- especially really smart ones like progressive Supreme Court justices. Here's how David Souter "proved" that the legislature's "actual" purpose was to endorse religion in McCreary County v. Kentucky ACLU, a 2005 decision that kicked the Ten Commandments out of a Kentucky courthouse:

    At the ceremony for posting the framed Commandments in Pulaski County, the county executive was accompanied by his pastor, who testified to the certainty of the existence of God. The reasonable observer could only think that the Counties meant to emphasize and celebrate the Commandments' religious message [ii].

    This "proof" has some interesting implications. For instance, according to Souter, any religious expression at a public event necessarily implies an official purpose to endorse religion, ceremonials and boilerplate included. Stranger still, to establish legislative purpose, religious expression doesn't have to come from the state legislature as a whole, an individual state legislator, or even a state legislator's family and friends. Guilt by association, even once or twice removed, will do just fine. And best of all, the legislature's "actual" purpose is established retroactively, just in time to strike down the law. That's pretty hot for speculation based on anecdotal evidence.

    Given that expressions of religious faith are anathema to progressives, and that almost any religious expression can establish a purpose to inculcate religion, the HHS mandate is a recipe for oppression. No Catholic medical center could afford to accept Obama's compromise and then wait in terror for the rules to change and Cass Sunstein-style "nudging" to begin. After all, who wants to become the next Notre Dame?

    And no one should have to. Any Catholic organization that refuses to provide coverage for contraceptives, abortion, and sex-change operations for religious reasons is by definition inculcating religion. The Supreme Court told us so, because as the mandate's defenders have dutifully reminded us, denying such coverage in the name of moral conscience not only "endorses" religion, but "coerces" hapless women to be Catholics.

    As the courtroom drama unfolds, we can amuse ourselves with the ObamaCare mandate's fractured logic and the president's utter disregard for the truth. But what I'd really like to see is an establishment clause suit brought against HHS by the insurers. After all, it's just not fair that secular corporations should have to pretend to foot the bill for maintaining the illusion that Catholics are obeying Church doctrine. It would be downright fun to hear Solicitor General Verrilli defend HHS's position on that one. The establishment clause would never be the same.

    -------------------

    As Chief Justice Burger pointed out in Bowen v. Roy, workers' unemployment benefits were one area where free exercise complaints met success, partly because the decisions focused on "protection against unequal treatment rather than a grant of favored treatment for the members of the religious sect" (476 U.S. 693, [1986], 708. Emphasis added.). According to Burger, decisions like Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div. (1981) were not controlling in "normal" free exercise cases like Bowen because the states required former employees to show "good cause" why they were no longer working. "[T]o consider a religiously motivated resignation to be 'without good cause' tends to exhibit hostility, not neutrality, towards religion." (Id.)

    [ii] 545 U.S. 844, 869. Emphasis added.


    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1w5hpEbXw
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #75
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    .
    What does the morning-after pill really do?
    Anti-abortion groups say Plan B and its competitors doom fertilized eggs, as does the label on the Plan B box. Science says they're both wrong
    By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – 6 hrs ago.


    A big sore point in the Catholic Church's high-profile pushback against the Obama administration making most employers' health insurance plans provide copay-free birth control is the idea that Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities will be forced to support (directly or indirectly) "abortifacients" or "abortion-inducing drugs" — which refers to the morning-after pill, primarily Plan B. But anti-abortion advocates are wrong about what what the morning-after pill does — as are abortion-rights proponents, the National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and Plan B's label — according to a new examination of the research by The New York Times. So what, in fact, does the morning-after pill do? And can science neuter the controversy surrounding Plan B? Here's a look:

    What's the common understanding of how the pills work?

    Plan B, its generic version Next Choice, and a new competitor, Ella, are controversial, in large part, because people think they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, thus keeping it from surviving. That's "the moral equivalent of homicide," says Dr. Donna Harrison at the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This perception is supported by the FDA-mandated label on Plan B and its competitors, which says that preventing implantation is one possible way the drug averts pregnancy.

    According to The Times, what really happens?

    The morning-after pill prevents fertilization from ever occurring, primarily by slowing the egg from entering the uterus until after the sperm dies off, as long as five days after intercourse, according to leading scientists. Some pills also make it harder for the sperm to reach the egg by thickening the cervical mucus. But no studies have shown that the pill affects the egg once it is fertilized — the moment of conception, according to some religious precepts. It turns out this politically charged fight over Plan B and abortion is "probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work," says Pam Belluck at The New York Times.

    How did people get the idea that the pill affects fertilized eggs?

    Plan B was approved in 1999, and the language on the packing about keeping a fertilized egg, or zygote, from implanting "reflects a period before the research confirmed what scientists already suspected," says Amanda Marcotte at Slate. And even as more and more studies show that the morning-after pills only slow ovulation, regulators are hesitant to change the label because of the "tendency in science not to rule out any possibilities until you have to." Then abortion politics entered the picture, and "unfortunately, the constant conflation of contraception and abortion has gone mainstream."

    Does what's on the label really matter?

    Both sides of the abortion debate "consider the wording on labels central because it summarizes scientific consensus and shapes what medical authorities say," says Belluck. So "theoretically, if a scientific consensus arises that says the pills do not prevent implantation," says Rebekah Kuschmider at Babble, that should remove any abortion-related stigma from Plan B, keeping it legal even if states adopt "fetal personhood" laws.

    Will federal regulators change the label?

    The FDA won't commit either way, but "it's possible," says Erin Gloria Ryan at Jezebel. "A growing chorus of scientists everywhere from the FDA to the Mayo Clinic to the National Institutes of Health seem amenable," and the makers of Plan B and Ella are lobbying for removing the language about post-fertizilation implanting.

    Will these new findings end the debate around Plan B?

    "Call me a cynic," but no, says Jezebel's Ryan. The anti-abortion side has too much invested in "the 'feticide' myth" to let it go that easily. And scientific facts certainly haven't prevented Republicans around the country from "pushing laws that would require doctors to lie to women about a supposed 'link' between abortion and breast cancer," says Dan Savage at The Stranger. Look, "I would be relieved" if the morning-after pill didn't terminate fertilized eggs, says Richard Doerflinger, anti-abortion director at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, but "so far what I see is an unresolved debate," and given the ethical problems with testing Plan B on women, "it's not only unresolved, but it may be unresolvable."

    http://news.yahoo.com/does-morning-p...090000059.html

    comments

    The FDA's website and Duramed Pharmaceuticals own website list the method of action as preventing implantation of the the fertilized embryo. That's why the FDA mandates it say that on the box.

    ..

    I look forward to more research on this subject. I, too, was under the impression that Plan B and similar drugs prevented implantation of a fertilized egg.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #76

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Posts
    5,185
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 852 Times in 390 Posts
    Every fertilized egg does not result in implantation. I was under the impression that it delays ovulation so fertilization cannot occur. Just my 2 cents worth.

    Me

  12. #77
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The Catholic contraception-mandate mega-lawsuit: A guide
    Notre Dame and 42 other Catholic institutions sue the Obama administration, arguing that they're being forced to facilitate behavior they find "intrinsically immoral"
    posted on May 22, 2012, at 2:15 PM


    On Monday, 43 Catholic organizations filed 12 federal lawsuits seeking to overturn the Obama administration's recent mandate that most employer-provided health insurance cover birth control and sterilization. The plaintiffs include several dioceses, social services providers, and educational institutions, but the biggest surprise was the participation of the University of Notre Dame, one of America's top Catholic colleges. What's this mega-lawsuit about? Here, a brief guide:

    Who exactly is participating in the lawsuit?
    Along with Notre Dame, parties to the 12 suits include 13 dioceses — among them the archdioceses of New York, Washington, D.C., and St. Louis — Catholic University, the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, and several Catholic schools and local Catholic Charities branches. Notable groups sitting the suit out are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which tells Commonweal that its "concerns are addressed in the lawsuits that were filed," and the Catholic Health Association (CHA), which is still in negotiations with the Obama administration.

    And what is the fight over?
    There are at least two issues that have the Catholic institutions up in arms. First: Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities will have to include copay-free birth control in their health insurance offerings, in violation of the church's (widely ignored) ban on contraception. The U.S. Catholic bishops rejected the Obama compromise — insurance will pay for the birth control, not the institutions — because some groups self-insure, and the rest still have to "facilitate" activities they see as "intrinsically immoral." The second issue is the Obama administration's decision to treat Catholic institutions separately than parishes and dioceses, which are exempt from the mandate.

    What do the plaintiffs want?
    The coordinated lawsuits ask federal courts to say that the contraception rules violate religious institutions' First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But some of the universities and all of the dioceses are already exempt, says Grant Gallicho at Commonweal. Why "sue now over a mandate that won't affect them and won't go into effect for another 15 months"? Obviously, says Elizabeth Scalia at Patheos, "they understand that, 'exempt' or not, 'accommodated' or not, the government is fundamentally overstepping its bounds with this mandate." This is about "religious freedom," and "that matters. A whole lot."

    Why file suit now?
    Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York says "time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now." That's "nonsense," says Commonweal's Gallicho. The hospitals and charities and universities have until August 2013 — "why sue before exhausting all other options?" Sadly, it seems that "many bishops seem to want this fight," says E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post. It's "looking more and more like a direct intervention in this fall's elections," with Obama being unfairly painted as "an enemy of religious freedom."

    Why did Notre Dame join?
    The university's president, Fr. John Jenkins, gave the same reasons as the other plaintiffs, minus "the vitriol and hyperbole," says Michael Sean Winters at National Catholic Reporter. He insists this isn't about contraception, which many faculty and students "have made conscientious decisions to use," but about "the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission." It's also about deftly "playing political football," says NCR's Ken Briggs. Jenkins is taking steps to "win the cheers of bishops who remain resentful of the university's awarding of an honorary degree to President Obama in 2009."

    Will this affect the presidential election?
    It certainly may be "a 'come to Jesus' moment for many Catholics," and could even "cast Catholics off from the Democratic Party for a generation," says Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Not so fast, says Michael O'Brien at MSNBC. The latest Gallup poll has Romney and Obama tied among Catholics, each with 46 percent. Will Romney will try to use the contraception mandate to chip away at Obama's Catholic supporters? Yes, he's already trying. But predicting the "Catholic vote" is "a fool's errand."

    http://theweek.com/article/index/228...awsuit-a-guide

    comments

    Religious issues aside, this illustrates the problem with obamacare. The Feds wants to micromanage every little nuance of health insurance. While many of us who oppose obamacare might accept a requirement for some sort of major medical/catastrophic injury insurance, that is not enough for the Feds; they want total control. It's the same bureaucratic control mentality that feels the need to increase the number of health insurance billing codes from 18,000 to 150,000 [e.g. 3 separate billing codes for injuries from parrots (not birds, specifically parrots) and 2 for flaming water skis]. That is a surrender of too much freedom even for an ostensibly good cause such as "universal coverage".

    ..


    just don't get how making church-run institutions that are not churches follow the same laws as non-church-run institutions amounts to "federal micromanaging". If an atheist man takes a job at a Catholic hospital, he doesn't become Catholic by default and become governed by Catholic dogma. He remains an American citizen, covered and protected by the Constitution. Why should his basic rights be nullified by the Catholic Church's prehistoric position on contraception? And even then, if the majority of Catholics don't listen to the Church when it comes to contraception, why should non-Catholics be forced to just because they work at a hospital run by a Catholic church?

    ...

    ANSWER: 1. You are FREE to get contraception from anywhere you want. it's a free country. No one's rights are infringed.

    2. You can't FORCE an organization to provide something that goes against it's religious code. It's a slippery-slope. What's next?

    3. No one can force the hypothetical "atheist man" to accept a position at a Catholic insitution.

    ...

    That's why I said "Religious issues aside". The micromanagement observation applies to everyone not just religious institutions.

    As to the rest of your comment, if non Catholics don't want to be governed by Catholic dogma, they don't have to work for that Catholic hospital or attend that Catholic school.

    Also, anti-discrimination laws prevent those Catholic hospitals and schools from limiting their hiring to Catholics. So if you are going to argue that Catholic institutions shouldn't impose their beliefs on non-Catholics as grounds to force them to violate their beliefs, then you have to give those Catholic institutions the option to not hire non-Catholics. Of course, that opens an even bigger can of worms.

    If the Feds didn't try to force a "one size fits all" insurance policy down everyone throats, they wouldn't have this problem. Hence my original suggestion, require some sort of basic major medical/catastrophic injury coverage and then let everyone else decide what additional coverage they need or don't need.

    ..

    Wow we throw that "Rights" argument around a lot. Is it really a right? Do we have a right to housing? Food? Where do "Rights" stop? This isn't a "Right", quit watering down real "rights" by making everything a "right".

    Second off, the church has a real right (1st amendment) not to break it's conscious and pay for what it sees as imoral. So even if this is a "right" to the person, the two rights clash. The one that wins is the one in the constitution. That's why we have a thing call "the bill of rights".

    ..

    Birth control is not a basic human right, and the Catholic organizations aren't denying their employees the right to use it, they just don't want to pay for it. I work for the state, whose "magnificent'" health care plan doesn't cover my birth control either... oh wait, they pay for $9 of it, I cover the other $60 out of pocket. Does anyone think *I* have a valid basis for litigation?

    ..

    The whole uproar is not over a Catholic contraception mandate--it is about religious liberty. The media won't admit that as the topic--it doesn't make the flashy headlines they like. And like Obama, they want to divide the voters. This assault by Obama is not just against the Church of Rome---it's against all of us.
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 06-12-2012 at 11:39 AM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in