Obama Mandate Forces Catholic College to Drop Insurance

juliee · #1 May 15, '12, 9:38 am

Obama Mandate Forces Catholic College to Drop Insurance

Steubenville, OH -- Franciscan University appears to be the first casualty of the new Obama HHS mandate that requires Catholic colleges, groups and businesses to pay for drugs that may cause abortions and birth control for their employees.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/15/o...rop-insurance/

jay29 · #2 May 15, '12, 5:28 pm

It's the whole point of the mandate - to get the Church out of healthcare.

M-Dent · #3 May 16, '12, 1:04 pm

I saw this on the Schools website.

Quote:

The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.

http://www.franciscan.edu/StudentHealthInsurance/

Quote:

"Absent prompt congressional attention to this infringement on fundamental civil liberties, we believe the only remaining recourse … is in the courts," lawyers for the group wrote.

USCCB attorneys foresee legal action against ‘unjust and unlawful’ HHS mandate

**Ridgerunner** · #4 May 16, '12, 1:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay29

It's the whole point of the mandate - to get the Church out of healthcare.

Not entirely. There is more in it for Obama than just that. It's also to present the Church with a terrible choice; to sin or to be fined for failing to sin. It's also to persuade Catholics on the edge of dissidence that nobody should listen to the bishops or the Magesterium. Also, he thinks he's going to buy womens' votes with this. Obama is an inveterate enemy of the Catholic Church

manualman · #5 May 16, '12, 1:41 pm

It's a shame that America has largely forgotten that evil can sometimes have a friendly face, a hearty handshake and an aura of sincerity. Principles aren't decided based on personality. Too bad we've forgotten that hard lesson

**edwest2** · #6 May 16, '12, 7:54 pm

Evil usually comes in a nice package. This Catholic College was not a casualty to anything or anyone - it stood up for its Catholic principles. It is a beacon of light.

Health care is for broken bones, disease, injury and mental health problems. It seeks to fix, cure and treat a problem. Artificial means of birth control fix or treat nothing. They interfere with normal biological functions. They are voluntary, not necessary.

Peace,
Ed

EviPolevhia · #7 May 17, '12, 9:52 pm

A friend of mine posted this article with the comment "Sad day, when we are not free to have health coverage and practice our religion. Catholics are targeted now. Who is next?". To which I responded with the following.

"The freedom to practice one's religion ends where it conflicts with Secular law, this to the best of my knowledge should've always been the case. If a radical Muslim family lived in the US and one of their family became and Apostate I would certainly NOT want them to kill that person. But yet under radical Islam such a thing is permitted.

This is not Catholicism being specifically targeted. You think you're the only religion that has a problem with this law?"

manualman · #8 May 18, '12, 7:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

This is not Catholicism being specifically targeted. You think you're the only religion that has a problem with this law?"

Take a philosophy class, for crying out loud! You are seriously equating the "need" for people to have free contraceptives and other people's rights to kill based on their honor code?

Civil law in this country has always been built in such a way to honor the hierarchy of human rights. Civil law bans muslims from killing family members who have 'dishonored' them, because that action would violate the more basic right of said family member (right to life!). The HHS mandate forces catholics and catholic institutions to violate primary moral teachings for no compelling reason. Nobody is so hard up that they can't go to Walgreens and buy a $5 pack of condoms with their OWN money. There is simply no need to forcibly require us to violate our conscience in order to satisfy the preferences of other groups (I don't like condoms, I want my pricey pill or my vasectomy and I want it free). That turns the hierarchy of rights upside down!

Farsight001 · #9 May 18, '12, 9:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

A friend of mine posted this article with the comment "Sad day, when we are not free to have health coverage and practice our religion. Catholics are targeted now. Who is next?". To which I responded with the following.

"The freedom to practice one's religion ends where it conflicts with Secular law, this to the best of my knowledge should've always been the case. If a radical Muslim family lived in the US and one of their family became and Apostate I would certainly NOT want them to kill that person. But yet under radical Islam such a thing is permitted.

This is not Catholicism being specifically targeted. You think you're the only religion that has a problem with this law?"

Freedom to practice one's religion actually doesn't end where it conflicts with Secular law, since freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. The only rights that truly trump freedom of religion are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The history of this country is filled with the government having to make exemptions to laws for religions because it is such a fundamental right. Extremist Muslims cannot kill their apostate family member because it violates the fundamental right to life. Catholics not providing abortifacients and contraceptives to others doesn't violate any such fundamental right. In fact, it saves lives. So the two situations are nothing alike.

EviPolevhia · #10 May 18, '12, 12:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

Freedom to practice one's religion actually doesn't end where it conflicts with Secular law, since freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. The only rights that truly trump freedom of religion are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So cutting short what for most insurance companies is standard medical care is not an infringement of liberty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

The history of this country is filled with the government having to make exemptions to laws for religions because it is such a fundamental right. Extremist Muslims cannot kill their apostate family member because it violates the fundamental right to life. Catholics not providing abortifacients and contraceptives to others doesn't violate any such fundamental right. In fact, it saves lives. So the two situations are nothing alike.

So that's why we allowed Mormons to get polygamous marriages, right? I mean it doesn't infringe upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, right? Oh, no, wait. We told them no.

Also it's not about saving lives. If it was just a matter of that then it would simply be illegal throughout the country and the matter would be closed.

manualman · #11 May 18, '12, 1:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

So cutting short what for most insurance companies is standard medical care is not an infringement of liberty?

So that's why we allowed Mormons to get polygamous marriages, right? I mean it doesn't infringe upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, right? Oh, no, wait. We told them no.

What? Nobody is attempting to prohibit insurance companies from offering sterilization and/or contraceptive coverage. We are protesting the requirement that all employers MUST provide such things. Surely you can tell the difference?

Polygamy was banned because it was recognized to inherently be exploitive of women. The institution itself is ordered to that effect. Thus the right of women to equal intrinsic dignity and worth under the law compared to a man trumps the desire of a man to have multiple wives. This is the same hierarchy of rights spoken of above that you've so far ignored (indeed so has the entire Obama Administration).

Farsight001 · #12 May 18, '12, 1:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

So cutting short what for most insurance companies is standard medical care is not an infringement of liberty?

Technically speaking, that would not be an infringement of liberty, no. And even if it was, freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom. That aside, no part of your question was representative of reality.

Quote:

So that's why we allowed Mormons to get polygamous marriages, right? I mean it doesn't infringe upon your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, right? Oh, no, wait. We told them no.

It's not allowed because it, unlike Catholic opposition to contraception, is not a requirement of the faith, but only allowed. No part of Mormon teachings says that a man must marry more than one wife, so not allowing them to marry more than one wife does not prevent them from abiding by their religion. In contrast, we are required to be opposed to contraception. Any Catholic who helps a person procure an abortion in any way, shape, or form (if I so much as give a girl gas money to get to the clinic), they incur an automatic excommunication from the church. Not so if a Mormon decides to keep only one wife.

Quote:

Also it's not about saving lives. If it was just a matter of that then it would simply be illegal throughout the country and the matter would be closed.

What in the world are you talking about? How is the legality of an action evidence that it's not about saving lives? There is no logical connection between the two whatsoever.

EviPolevhia · #13 May 18, '12, 2:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by manualman

You are seriously equating the "need" for people to have free contraceptives and other people's rights to kill based on their honor code?

I don't recall ever saying the words need, free, or contraceptive. Who's argument are you going after?

Quote:

Originally Posted by manualman

The HHS mandate forces catholics and catholic institutions to violate primary moral teachings for no compelling reason. Nobody is so hard up that they can't go to Walgreens and buy a $5 pack of condoms with their OWN money. There is simply no need to forcibly require us to violate our conscience in order to satisfy the preferences of other groups (I don't like condoms, I want my pricey pill or my vasectomy and I want it free). That turns the hierarchy of rights upside down!

The compelling reason is this forces Universities, Hospitals, Insurers, and Charities (Specificly not Churches or other houses of worship) to offer the same services as other Universities, Hospitals, Insurers, and Charities. I'm sure all of those organizations receive some Federal funding. If you don't want them to play by the government's rules you can't also expect them to get anything from the Government. I'm 100% fine with a Catholic run Hospital following Catholic teachings on every matter if they cut all financial and legal ties with the Government.

Also I find it amusing you suggest condoms. Isn't that just as gravely immoral?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

Technically speaking, that would not be an infringement of liberty, no. And even if it was, freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom.

Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness are all mentioned in the same breath. If you're saying Freedom of Religion trumps Liberty, "...freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom", then why not Life as well as per my example of an honor killing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

It's not allowed because it, unlike Catholic opposition to contraception, is not a requirement of the faith, but only allowed. No part of Mormon teachings says that a man must marry more than one wife, so not allowing them to marry more than one wife does not prevent them from abiding by their religion.

Incorrect. Jacob 2:27-30. It still had to be a proper marriage through their priesthood. But until they changed their minds in 1890 it was something they said that God had required of them.

Farsight001 · #14 May 18, '12, 3:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EviPolevhia

Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness are all mentioned in the same breath. If you're saying Freedom of Religion trumps Liberty, "...freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and trumps such a freedom", then why not Life as well as per my example of an honor killing?

Pardon, perhaps I misspoke - I wouldn't call such a thing a liberty in the first place - at least certainly not the way the constitution defines it. Liberty means not being a slave and little else. Contraception access is, at best, a right, not a matter of liberty. And freedom of religion still trumps right to contraception, no matter how one tries to spin it.

On top of all this, no one is actually taking away the right to contraception. They're just saying that you can't get it from them. I have a right to eat meat too. But I'm not about to complain and rant and rave and raise hell over a vegan restaurant not offering any. I'll just pick a different restaurant.

Quote:

Incorrect. Jacob 2:27-30. It still had to be a proper marriage through their priesthood. But until they changed their minds in 1890 it was something they said that God had required of them.

I call bull. You're saying that if a Mormon man was not married to more than one woman, he was sinning according to Mormon teachings? Bullsnot. Single Mormon men who had not found a wife yet, and married men who had yet to find a second wife were sinning simply as a result of their state of being? Ridiculous. This is probably why nowhere in your provided verses does it make such a claim.

EviPolevhia · #15 May 18, '12, 4:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

I have a right to eat meat too. But I'm not about to complain and rant and rave and raise hell over a vegan restaurant not offering any.

Show me a Restaurant that's given the same government support as a University and then maybe that analogy works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

Single Mormon men who had not found a wife yet, and married men who had yet to find a second wife were sinning simply as a result of their state of being? Ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous sounding as Original sin to a non believer.