Posted on 02/13/2012 10:17:41 AM PST by sickoflibs
So Obama is telling these Catholic nonprofits that they really are not paying for the abortion pills, because they will get the money back when their employees use them and reduce birth/pregnancy related costs.
I will be sorely disappointed if this scam works for Obama. Obama was only really worried about those lib Catholics that supported Obama-care and this was a fake (non-existent) compromise to give them a face save to join him again. If this is still a story in a week then Obamas scam has failed.
Easy target ping!
Worse, our President-Tyrant has the law of Congress, OUR representatives behind him. Make no mistake, Obamacare was the close American equivalent of a certain Enabling Act of 1933.
"Thus let it be Written ... Thus let it be Done."
I think he covered that. They will save that same money they have to pay out when later on those using the 'free' BC don't have kids, Obama calls it an ‘investment’
How about all those 'jobs' the stimulus created?
Sound familiar? Dictators.
He’s created a tangible immediate benefit out of nothing! This hasn’t happened since the bread and fish incident just under two millenia ago. Truly I am not worthy that such greatness shall enter under my roof in the next 4 years.
It's not even limited to the principle of religious liberty or freedom of speech.
It is about an unconstitutional assumption of power over rights which "the People" withheld from the purview of the government they structured through their Constitution. If this arrogation of power to the Executive is allowed to stand in this case, then all of "the People's" rights are at risk.
Inasmuch as their Constitution allowed no power to infringe on any specified right in the First Amendment, then the person who assumes such a power also does not possess a power to "compromise," or "accomodate."
May I suggest that readers of this thread read Leonard Read's "Anything That's Peaceful," which can be read online, and share this wonderful and easy-to-read book with as many people as you can. The book itself can be ordered from FEE.
Not only does Read provide insight into the ideas of liberty versus those of tyranny (as in socialism), but his Chapter 5, entitled, "How Socialism Harms the Individual" is especially enlightening for any who may not see what is happening in America in its proper context, as pertains to the individuals involved.
In Chapter 5, under the heading "The Authoritarian," he begins by stating, "Of the threee classifications of persons involved in social leveling by compulsion, the authoritarian--the one who administers the taking and the giving--has been too little diagnosed." When you read it, you will see the nature of the man before us today. This section of Chapter 5 paints a portrait most Americans will recognize.
An extra bonus of this wonderful book is that it contains Read's famous "I, Pencil." Copies should be placed in every school library and in every home school setting.
Honest question: Does the expected births of a given population actually decrease when given free contraceptives as opposed to paying for them?
My guess is that those who care about the costs of birth would pay for them out of pocket if need be. I would assume the small differential in costs compared to avoiding the cost of raising a child already is enough incentive to use birth control. We are applying this to a population that is gainfully employed so they likely have funds to purchase contraceptives.
If my assumption is correct then what savings would occur?
You are forgetting the lowering of the sea levels.
You are correct in that Obama is just making up the part about savings in that he has no way of knowing how effective free BC would be in controlling births. This is much like the stimulus CBO jobs estimates, just made up.
The general argument goes like Republicans on welfare and taxes: That the activity that is taxed is suppressed, and on welfare or unemployment comp :the activity that is substidized is promoted.
My point above is really that Obama's claim that this NON-change in policy gives Catholics a 'moral exemption' is a joke, not so much that it doesnt save someone money at some time.
I hope that next he’ll declare social programs to be ‘free’ and taxpayers funds will no longer be needed to support them.
What's that worth?
This is the “compromise” the liberals are touting?!?!?
True - we live in exciting times.
Yesterday the Sunday show media was quizzing Obama’s chief of staff Jacob Lew about Obama’s 'reversal' or 'backtracking' on this policy and Lew quite frankly said that Obama hasn't changed the policy at all on this, but just clarified it. I think it was on CBS that he stated it the most clearly. Note you dont see any liberals upset over the ‘compromise’.
I picked up on it but it seemed missed by everyone else. Maybe I can find a transcript.
Yesterday the Sunday show media was quizzing Obama’s chief of staff Jacob Lew about Obama’s 'reversal' or 'backtracking' on this policy and Lew quite frankly said that Obama hasn't changed the policy at all on this, but just clarified it. I think it was on CBS that he stated it the most clearly. Note you dont see any liberals upset over the ‘compromise’.
I picked up on it but it seemed missed by everyone else. Maybe I can find a transcript.
Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.
The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.
From the Catholic Catechism #675, regarding Revelations.
“...religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth...”!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.