published Tuesday, February 14th, 2012

Obama's phony 'compromise' on religious liberty, health care

  • photo
    President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius leave the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington after the president announced the revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control.
    Photo by Associated Press /Chattanooga Times Free Press.

It was appalling when the Obama administration ordered religiously affiliated organizations to furnish their workers with medical insurance plans that cover contraceptives — even if those plans violate the teachings of the organizations. The order violated the beliefs and the religious liberty of many Catholic charities, hospitals and schools which oppose the use of contraception.

Whatever your views on birth control, the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion makes it clear that church-affiliated organizations cannot be compelled to undermine their own teachings.

The order drew such fierce protest from freedom-loving Americans — Democrats and Republicans, Catholics and non-Catholics — that the administration announced late last week it would alter its rule to accommodate the beliefs of religious charities, hospitals and so forth.

Unfortunately, that solved nothing. The charities and other groups will still in effect be forced to provide insurance plans that cover contraception, even though that violates their principles.

Here is how The Associated Press reported on the supposed “compromise”: “Employers affiliated with a religion will not have to provide birth control coverage if it offends their beliefs. However, the insurers that cover their workers will be required to offer birth control directly to women working for the religious employer, and do so free of charge.”

In other words, when a religious charity or hospital secures an insurance plan for its employees, the insurer will have to provide contraception. And because contraception is not “free,” the insurers sooner or later will “figure out how to pass on the cost,” the AP noted. To whom are they likely to wind up passing on that cost? To the religiously affiliated employers!

Even if the employers do not end up having to pay the cost themselves, they still, by law, will have to offer health coverage that includes contraception — which is at the very core of their religious and First Amendment objections to the new rule.

The alleged “accommodation” of charities’, schools’ and hospitals’ religious beliefs is nothing but a shell game. Those institutions will still be forced to violate their beliefs under ObamaCare.

The president should completely withdraw any order that would require religious organizations to provide medical insurance plans that offer services that undermine their fundamental teachings.

31
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
joneses said...

Now Obama is dictating religous beliefs. Pathetic. Will someone arrest this fool for not upholding the laws of the U.S. Constitution he swore to uphold?

February 14, 2012 at 7:28 a.m.
librul said...

No comment necessary - Jon Stewart says it all...stick it up your Santorumhole, Joneses...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/14/jon-stewart-mocks-santorums-hypocrisy-in-contraception-spat/

February 14, 2012 at 7:53 a.m.
gjuster said...

It's not about religion - it's about the government dictating what an individual or company must do. Everywhere you look, our freedoms are being crushed. Today - what you have to offer, tomorrow, what you can eat - wait, that's already started.

February 14, 2012 at 8:04 a.m.
conservative said...

So Obamination is telling the employer that you don't have to buy insurance that covers free contraceptives but the insurance you buy must provide free contraceptives.

It's an IQ test.

February 14, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Curious if the RCC supports free viagra and cialis.

gjuster, please list the freedoms we had that have been crushed by government.

February 14, 2012 at 8:45 a.m.
librul said...

Oh puhleeeze - just listen to Santorum talk. Nobody's dictating that ANY person do ANYTHING they do not want to do. That's what these old geezers in the bastions of sectarianism are doing - trying to dictate what everyone ELSE should do and whining incessantly that it bruises their rigid, Dark Age sensibilities when it is THEY who are asked to accomodate the rights of others. They are just a bunch of zealots trying to wage a war on individual choice, much to the delight of the zealots at Fox who are making political hay while the sun of controversy is shining. I know that catholic churches give away crackers and wine every sunday but I would rather choose to go have an egg McMuffin, thank you. No harm done. Just because an insurance plan makes available coverage for birth control does not mean that catholic women are being strapped in chairs and having the pills shoved down their throats. If the old geezers took the time, they would find that these same women are quite eager to avail themselves of the coverage by their own CHOICE.

February 14, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.
gjuster said...

Here are some freedoms that have gone away - you MUST wear a seatbelt,(while that is a good idea and I wear mine - you are fined if you don't) you can not own a restaurant that allows smoking even if you want to, there are now cities where you can't even smoke in your own car, in several areas of the country they are beginning to determine what you can't have (salt in NYC, no new fast food restaurants in central LA). Only time for a couple of examples.

February 14, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.
gjuster said...

One last comment - I have no problem with contraceptives - I have a problem with FREE contraceptives or FREE abortion. Nothing is free - it means I pay for your choices. Want contraceptives, then buy them.

February 14, 2012 at 8:57 a.m.
conservative said...

So the states and the federal government dictate what an insurance company must cover which drives up the cost of insurance and Lieberals blame insurance companies for the high cost of insurance.

Just one of the reasons why they are called Lieberals.

February 14, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

gjuster, is that the best you can do?

February 14, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Ok, Ok, just let that wonderful government take over and see how marvelous our lives become. It's been in the workings now for decades and both parties have been complicit. I just hope we have news outlets to see all you who have supported and wanted it spew out how marvelous it will be when the government, not individuals, not the ones who work and pay the bills, tell you when and where you can go, what you can do etc. Just wait until then, that is where this is headed. I cannot wait to see the "liberal" responses to this post. Oh, you'll just ignore it. That may be the most liberal, according to Webster's New World Dictionary, thing you can do. Enjoy all that universal governmentally funded stuff. The Soviets did for decades, so they thought.

February 14, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'm still looking for some evidence that we are losing our "freedoms". I have yet to lose any. Of course, my freedoms end where someone else's begin, something that some folks don't quite understand.

As far as paying through taxes for things you don't "believe in" or accept, that's the price we pay to live in a republic. Elect people who support what you do. Accept that no one has 100% say in how their tax dollars are used.

February 14, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
moon4kat said...

I agree with lkeithlu; living in a society (as opposed to living totally alone as a hermit) means that we all must make some compromises for the good of all. gjuster complains that people are required to wear seatbelts, and can't smoke in restaurants, apparently not realizing (or caring) WHY those laws came into existence. As for seatbelts, it's partly because the rest of us end up paying for the medical treatment needed when an uninsured person goes through a windshield. Similar reason for motorcycle helmets. As for smoking in restaurants, the employees and service providers have to inhale the toxic fumes even if they don't have the habit, and then we all pay the cost of their medical care. Few of us live in a vacuum; what you do affects others, whether you are conscious of it or not. (I've not heard of any city where you cannot smoke in you own car. Where, exactly, is that, gjuster?)

February 14, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
moon4kat said...

And, gjuster should know that insurance companies were instrumental in lobbying the government to impose seatbelt and helmet requirements, because they would have to paying the medical bills when their insureds crashed through windshields or splatted their brains onto the asphalt. The same may be true of rules relating to second-hand smoke. Not all regulation is generated by "liberals" or "big, bad government."

February 14, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.
EaTn said...

Would you right wingers prefer to pay a few bucks for contraceptives or a few thousand bucks for unwanted babies? Free birth control does not mean forced birth control. Any unwanted pregnancies costs our taxpayers out the nose and adds to the deficit. So you righties prefer no free contraceptives but more abortions and/or welfare kids?

February 14, 2012 at 12:54 p.m.
conservative said...

Moon--

I sometimes wonder if Lieberals are stupid or evil. I most often believe they are evil.

You correctly note that what we do affects "others", especially in the area of medical costs. Some of these behaviors are overeating resulting in obesity, drug abuse, perverted sex, smoking, and alcoholism. All of these incur tremendous medical costs to our society ( those "others"). Yet Lieberals promote and tolerate all of these behaviors. Even worse, want "others" to pay for the inevitable costs resulting from these behaviors.

You get it, but other Lieberals may just be stupid.

February 14, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I sometimes wonder if Lieberals are stupid or evil. I most often believe they are evil.

This coming from someone who still can't define "conservative".

You correctly note that what we do affects "others", especially in the area of medical costs. Some of these behaviors are overeating resulting in obesity, drug abuse, perverted sex, smoking, and alcoholism.

And yet, conservatives criticize Mrs. Obama for trying to address one of these, and most conservatives would NEVER allow government to impose on our freedom to regulate ourselves on these.

All of these incur tremendous medical costs to our society ( those "others"). Yet Lieberals promote and tolerate all of these behaviors.

Support this statement. When have I or any other liberal promoted behavior that is harmful?

Even worse, want "others" to pay for the inevitable costs resulting from these behaviors.

Again, support this claim with some evidence.

Oh, yeah-you never really support anything you say here.

February 14, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
conservative said...

EaTn--

Where do I begin? No, not the song. You pose a dilemma with your question, "Would you right wingers prefer to pay a few bucks for contraceptives or a few thousand bucks for unwanted babies?" You only see two choices, however, there are more than two choices. You Lieberals should pay for your own contraceptives just like you always have. Go to Planned Parenthood ( oh, I forgot, that's not their real goal ). You Lieberals should get sterilized. Refuse to pay people to have children out of wedlock. Promote morals and marriage instead.

If you cared about the taxpayer and deficits, you wouldn't be a Lieberal, wouldn't have voted for and will not vote again for Owebama. What hypocrisy!

February 14, 2012 at 3:48 p.m.
TinaFrench said...

Conservative, Should I use the Newt as my role model in the promotion of morals and marriage?

February 14, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “I sometimes wonder if Lieberals are stupid or evil. I most often believe they are evil.”

If you've finished with your religious war rhetoric and have a true desire to ponder on the subject of morals, perhaps, you can explain to us why the Conservative Political Action Conference has set up a platform for the notorius, race-baiting, white nationalist, Peter Brimelow:

“If the Conservative Political Action Conference can be expected to accomplish anything more than angry bellowing, it is to reliably embarrass every decent and sane conservative in America. Sometimes the problem is a conspiratorial extremist co-sponsor, like the John Birch Society; sometimes the problem is a certifiable kook giving the keynote address, like Glenn Beck; and sometimes the problem is just vicious bullying of gay conservatives, who have been officially expelled from the conference.

But now the annual Washington showcase of the far right is plunging toward new depths of disgrace, by featuring “white nationalists” among its speakers. . .

According to reports by People for the American Way and the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR), the CPAC contingent this week will include Peter Brimelow, the notorious race-baiting activist who founded VDARE.com, an anti-immigration website that has long been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate site. Brimelow’s website regularly publishes the work of white supremacist and anti-Semitic writers.

Joining Brimelow on at least one panel will be Robert Vandervoort, identified by CPAC as executive director of ProEnglish, a group advocating “English-only” policies—but Vandervoort is also the former organizer of the “Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance,” another white nationalist hate group that is affiliated with the same racist authors who appear on Brimelow’s website. Their panel is called “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the Pursuit of Diversity Is Weakening the American Identity.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/white_nationalists_share_spotlight_with_gop_at_cpac_20120212/

February 14, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
conservative said...

"When have I or any other liberal promoted behavior that is harmful?"

Are Lieberals stupid or evil? I will supply you with some definitions of "promote", think about the definitions, then evaluate your intellect or degree of evil, whichever may apply.

Macmillan: to support or encourage something

Oxford: 1support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of:

February 14, 2012 at 4:41 p.m.
conservative said...

"Conservative, Should I use the Newt as my role model in the promotion of morals and marriage?"

I certainly wouldn't. Did you get a different answer from your favorite Lieberal mentor?

February 14, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I didn't ask for a definition, numb nuts. I asked for evidence to show that I or any other liberal promoted these behaviors.

February 14, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
conservative said...

Mountain--

If you think I am going to read all of that you are badly mistaken.

February 14, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

If you think I am going to read all of that you are badly mistaken.

There, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem with conservative. Now, is he a TROO CONSERVATIVE (TM)? A benchmark with which to measure all conservatives? Or is he one of a kind?

February 14, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: "I sometimes wonder if Lieberals are stupid or evil. I most often believe they are evil.”

Since you're pondering on the subject of morals, perhaps, you can explain to us why the Conservative Political Action Conference has set up a platform for the notorius, race-baiting, white nationalist, Peter Brimelow?

February 14, 2012 at 6:25 p.m.
conservative said...

I noticed the time of your comment. There is no way you took enough time to consider the harmful things you support or encourage as a Lieberal.

You were testy, probably an hormonal thing.

February 14, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
conservative said...

Mountain--

Never heard of him. Don't know anything about him.

I'm sure they have a website. Why don't you correspond with them and ask your questions?

February 14, 2012 at 6:56 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I noticed the time of your comment. There is no way you took enough time to consider the harmful things you support or encourage as a Lieberal.

You were testy, probably an hormonal thing.

Cop out-I asked you to show evidence to support your statement, and you bailed. Somehow, given your record, I am not surprised at all. Is being a coward and refusing to support what you say an attribute of TROO CONSERVATIVES(TM)? Funny that you accuse me of "not taking time" immediately after your comment to mountain laurel. Too funny.

February 14, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said Re "Conservative Political Action Conference" white nationalist speakers: "Never heard of him. Don't know anything about him."

Sounds like you’re out of the real "conservative" loop, Conservative. In addition to several notorious white nationalists speakers, almost most all of the Republican super stars were there: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin etc..

February 14, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

It's easy to be Mr. conservative; just stick your fingers in your ears and say "LaLaLa I can't HEAR you!"

Ignorance is bliss, or so they say. So why are you always so angry, conservative?

February 14, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.