As a practicing Catholic, Mr. Doheny says he is outraged over requirements the health plans of faith based employers have to provide things like contraception, morning-after pills and sterilization which may be against the beliefs of the employer.
It's part of ObamaCare and the outrage is part of the latest GOP/FOX News outrage. Actually there are other things in ObamaCare that could be considered troublesome although not as emotional.
For instance, the City Council is restricted in implementing new contribution percentages for new hires because to do so would eliminate a "grandfather" clause for publicly run health plan. If the contributions are changed too much even for new hires, the guidance is that a whole slew of preventive medicine procedures would have to be included in what is covered. While the theory is this would decrease costs long term, in the short term it would raise costs.
This runs the risk of derailing the implementation of 25% contribution levels for new management hires. It also creates a situation where single person plans can pay up to 26% towards premiums but family plans only 19%. This increases the effective subsidy of family plan employees and may prompt employers to look even more favorably on hiring single people or married people where the prospective employee is on another plan.
There are all sorts of unintended consequences to the mandates of ObamaCare. Some may seem nice, but they are costly and take away choices traditionally made closer to home.
Doheny: ObamaCare On The Attack Against Religious Liberty Doheny for Congress
35 comments:
While I do not like government involved in my church, a couple of polls show that a solid majority of women who receive health insurance plans from Catholic Church-related institutions want contraception and family planning services from these plans. The shame is that some of these women, who can't afford these services on their own, may instead seek abortions to stop unplanned pregnancies.
As far as the City of Watertown health plan, there were no promises made that the Affordable Care Act would be perfect in all ways. The President did promise that if you like your health care plan the way it is you can keep it. However, you can't change the plan drastically without coming under ACA rules that apply to everyone with new plans.
The ACA is only a first step in reforming a terrible health care system that is too expensive and doesn't cover everyone. Much remains to be done especially on costs. If your city's issue is a general problem, it can be changed under ACA without consequences for the whole Act.
Republicans like to complain about the ACA and call for repeal and replace. But so far they have not adequately indicated what they would replace the ACA with that would improve the situation. Matt Doheny's call for sales of insurance across state borders is weak on addressing costs and availability and fraught with consumer protection problems.
Note: Just because lbruls cause consequences that are bad, does not mean they were unintended. for instance Obama used his discretion in choosing to enforce this anti-catholic law.
Please don't call it Fox news outrage. I don't care about abortions or contraception but I respect Catholicism enough (and the half of the population that is against abortions) to know that I don't like government forcing the church to supply the service.
Too bad gays are not the ones against abortions and contraception or else the democrats would decry it to be unconstitutional in a fetal hearbeat.
Doheny on Birth Control Rules
So, Mr. Doheny is a practicing Catholic. Good for him. I wonder, though, does he also practice safe sex. Does he mind if any of his girl friend, Catholic or not, practices birth control? Those two questions need to be asked and Mr. Doheny needs to answer them both just the way I asked them. Then I suggest he read up on the specifics of the bill. To wit:
1. The Family Research Council claims the decision "undermines the conscience rights of many Americans."
2. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, chairman of Committee on Pro-Life Activities with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops says "pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed by any means technically possible."
3. Many people feel the decision forces people to participate who may hold strong moral or religious convictions and oppose any contraception use.
For example, a 2010 poll Hart Research Hart Research Poll commissioned by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund shows that 71 percent of American voters (including 77 percent of Catholic women voters) have supported having health plans cover prescription birth control at no cost.
And, the biggie, Mr. Doheny: 28 States (including MA which was under Romney-care) requires all employers to provide birth control in their health care plans, and 7 of those states have no religious exemption.
So, sir, where is your argument now? I contend it’s on weak ground, or thin ice.
Doheny should keep his practicing catholic views to himself and not try to push them on others. Another reason to dislike him and make him a two time loser.
Contraception is not illegal and apparently not taken too seriously by practicing Catholics.
By conservative estimates, upwards of 98% of Roman Catholic women in America have practiced some form of birth control despite the church’s teachings.
Clearly, if the church were going to prevail on convincing their flock of the ‘evils’ of contraception this number would be a lot different.
And while the Catholic Church feels that they should not be mandated to provide something they are against. It doesn't seem to bother them that they are forcing their beliefs on their non-Catholic employees as many Roman Catholic Schools and hospitals hire non-Catholics to fill positions.
This is not a freedom of religion issue -- but rather, the Church of Rome's desire to make others submit to their out-dated third century dictates from the pulpit.
It seems to me, it is the Catholic Church that is overreaching it’s authority to the same degree as they would have you believe that the government is by passing this mandate.
Regardless, Mr. Doheney’s superfluous ‘outrage’ is completely out of step with the majority of practicing Catholics and more in line with the politically motivated demagoguery and hypocrisy of the far right.
Md49, this is not a question of what the masses want. This is a question of freedom and constitutionality. A church should not and cannot be forced to provide services that go against its own teachings. Use your friggin head for once. This is not about mob rule, no matter how much you and the Dannie types hold the Constitution in contempt.
Wrong answer there 8.06. The government needs to stay out of bedrooms and look at some of the shady back deals in all this. Why do you think the med. companys are all chopping at the bits? Someone put some back deal laws into the whole deal to get rich. I'm not Catholic, but I understand they have a right not to be told by the government how to handle their health care. We all have the right to handle our health. Why not just pass a bill that said....If you don't want insurance, you don't want care? That's easy to deal with. I know several people who bitch about not being able to afford insurance and they buy hundreds of dollars of smokes a month. Same with some who drink every week at the bars and don't have insurance. Yes their are people with big familys hurting. You know a re;igious person who doesn't believe in birth control.
I wonder if they will mandate pork on the menu and to justify it, site a statistic of how many from anti-swine religions have eaten pork? Of course they won't because libruls are discriminating in legislating their hate crime.
The 500# gorilla in the room is why are insurance companies paying for contraceptive in the first place while they stole money from medicaid to pay for it?
Why not have cell phone plans pay for contraceptive instead. Both are optional and elective. And the takers that are taking this free service at the expense of grandma certainly have a cell phone.
And birth control and abortions have negative health consequences too. Why ain't they covering plastic surgery? Seems like libruls shoud push for that since they all are so ugly inside and out.
It is another 'tiny step' by OB in government take over of our lives. His white mother should have used birth control.
This move by Obummer is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Doesn't matter what we think about it. This isn't the first violation of his Oath of Office and they will continue as long as the voters let him get away with it. And if you all think this 4 years have been bad, you wait and see what happens if he gets re-elected and has another fours years where he doesn't have to answer to anybody for his actions!
People deserve the government they get.
This is like forcing your car insurance to pay for your gasoline. Not only have the libtards redefined the words progressive and reform but now they changed the meaning of the word insurance too. Birth control pills can be had for fifty cents per day. Maybe they can put off a tattoo for a few months and buy their own birth control. Talk about socialism!
Attacking Owens religious views is beneath the standards one should have to run for Congress. Doheny is desperate.
Completely stupid statement, 9:53. You should be able to have your own religious beliefs, not have them defined by our government. If you don't like the benefits offered by a catholic employer, where you can't get your abortions paid for, work somewhere else.
The Catholic Church was one of the big guns that came out in support for Obamacare. It was fine as long as everybody ELSE got stuck with Obamacare wasn't it? Now the chickens have come home to roost. Sorry, but as despicable as Obama's actions on this are, the Church is getting just what it deserves.
Owens has started to veto parts of the bill already. He knows it isn't all set to go like the rest of the Dems. want you to believe. Look into the whole story. Coming out and telling that Obama Care is bad is just a way to jump on the wagon and find an issue that can be brought to the table to make who ever is running look like they care about good old us.
Wait until the election is over and you find out the voters choose the desperate over the despot.
Interesting points being raised. I don't remember the Catholic church being supportive of this Nazi healthcare plan. But many did who are now going to pay dearly for it. And I fear FreeStuff will win next time around as it has of late. The American people would gladly wear a chain around their necks, or pin a star on their chests, if they think they could get something for free. That's the way this was sold, to people who don't appreciate freedom. Not when they can get something they are "entitled" to.
Let's be honest, Doheny is as much a practicing Catholic as Obama is Christian.
Cry Baby Boehner says:
"...an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country."
But a group of 23 Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders countered Boehner's argument, saying in a joint statement Wednesday that they stand with President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in their decision to expand birth control coverage for women:
"We believe that women and men have the right to decide whether or not to apply the principles of their faith to family planning decisions, and to do so they must have access to services," the group said. "Hospitals and universities across the religious spectrum have an obligation to assure that individuals' conscience and decisions are respected and that their students and employees have access to this basic health care service. We invite other religious leaders to speak out with us for universal coverage of contraception."
Boehner is not being a crybaby about anything. This move by the President is a clear violation of the First Amendment. "A group of 23 religeous leaders stand with the Pres. on this one". One more reason why a lot of us don't go to church anymore. Church leaders are just like politicians. They are worried about POWER, not serving the people.
In the end I predict the Church will get its exemption, not only because it is the right thing, but because many Democrats are uneasy with the idea of the gov't forcing Catholic entities to pay for something the Church is fundamentaly against. And the argument that the new rule should apply because many non Catholics work at these universities and hospitals is a hollow one. Afterall, the Church can't discriminate against potential employees because of their religion. These people know the conditions when they accept the job.
In respect to the “constitutionality’ of this issue, David Bois, a Constitutional lawyer had this to say:
“This is not a Constitutional issue; not an issue re religious freedom. It is a Labor Issue. The Churches, whose role is to promulgate faith, are exempt in provision of this mandate to their employees. Church sponsored institutions who provide other services, such as healthcare and education, are not. They are in two roles: Employers and Providers. In their role as Employers, they are subject to all federal laws governing employment, ie, minimum wage, overtime compensation, pension rules, safety, group health plan regulations, etc. The Patient Healthcare Affordability Act mandates coverage for all preventive health care services for women, including reproductive care, and contraception is considered a preventive service by medicine. Therefore, these institutions must adhere to the mandate, as employers. As Providers, they retain the freedom to provide their services, healthcare or curriculums, or their product, based on the mission statement formulated by their respective teachings and beliefs as a religious organization. They can deny any services or curriculum that is in conflict with their beliefs or "conscience.”
He goes on to say:
“…28 states are operating with this mandate with no problem, including New York, where the Catholic Church "is doing very well".
Clearly, there is no clear violation of the First Amendment.
Again 12:34, the states going along with this are motivated primarily by politics, not law. To cite the practices of NYS to support your reasoning is humorous. We certainly are a pillar of legal and moral example. FreeStuff, or the perception of it, rules. But this will be anything but free. Remember Obama's claims. He said we will provide health insurance to 35 million AND lower costs. Two more blatant lies have never been spoken.
The teacher that just lost her discrimination case in the SCOTUS only taught 45 minutes per day of religious class and the rest was standard academics. Christianity is responsible for bringing public education and hospitals to this country. Those institutions are part of Christianity.It is not like they are running a widget factory and hiring employees. If you dismiss everything that doesn't go back 2000 years in Christianity as not being part of that religion then we should dismiss all religions that are not 2000 years old. How old is Mohamed again?
And what the hell does it mean to say that Christianity is doing fine in New York? Gays were doing fine before they got the right to marry too.
Prediction Time: The USSC will not overturn the employer provided healthcare mandate for birth control coverage for women as a choice option ...
Say you heard it here first. Place your bets.
"Hey Mulatto Man - work for the "State" and separate from the church!" Tommy Jefferson
Does this theoretically mean that Catholic institutions could deny employees insurance coverage for an elective tubal ligation?
Could they refuse to cover vasectomies?
This goes beyond contraception and speaks directly to the Catholic Church's wish to impose its mid-evil beliefs onto their employees, thereby infringing on the right of that employee to choose.
Catholics are free to worship as they please and to abstain from any forms of contraception if they so choose.
This is not a freedom of religion issue -- this is an 'employee's right to choose' issue.
1:47 PM, try to stay focused on the topic.
Dannie is probably right. We are repidly becoming Nazi Germany. And the Great and Anointed One is leading the way. Fashion is much more important than some Constitution thingie. And it doesn't surprise me we heard it first from Dannie.
Danny is right.
The SCOTUS will not overturn this because the voters will overturn Obama first.
Why are libruls so dumb?
They have no idea what common words or phrases mean.
They don't know what the term "deny access" means and conflate it with "provide for free".
So let me get this straight....
Today’s Repubatards:
Strongly oppose abortion...
Strongly oppose the medications that will prevent abortion...
Strongly oppose welfare for single moms who have children because they don't have any choices left.
And they call Democrats unreasonable... uh huh, sure ---
GOOD ONE!
“Gays were doing fine before they got the right to marry too.”
Well now, how the hell would you know that since you’re not personally affected?
Oh, that’s right... I keep forgetting, Republicans only care about ‘individual rights’ when it applies to them and their narrow minded self serving views.
There is no defense for attempting to force religions to go against their own teachings. Md28 says he doesn't want government involved in his church, but he bends over for just that. This is no longer a country based on the Constitution. There is now no limit to what government can do. And the Dannie types have no problem with it. What a shame so many wasted their lives defending something they never believed in. Md23 can be excused. He never really appreciated what he gave up. Dannie just lied to himself for a political party he came to love more than his own country.
“There is no defense for attempting to force religions to go against their own teachings.”
There is no First Amendment issue here.
The church isn’t being forced to 'do' anything.
Despite the White House’s very reasonable compromise by adjusting the mandate Friday, Blat Baby Boehner and ``some`` Republicans are threatening a legal challenge.
But it appears the President has one unlikely ally to thank for helping this cause: Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia...
"One thing I think is crystal clear -- there is no First Amendment violation by this law," Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. "The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws."
‘The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws…’
Scalia:
“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,” wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices…”
Of course this argument presupposes that Scalia is not a hypocrite… a very dubious assumption.
Source:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-scalia-helped-obama-defend-the-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpa
Post a Comment