Posted on 02/07/2012 8:35:41 PM PST by SeekAndFind
How dangerous is this for them? Dangerous enough that even Chris Matthews, who was last seen praising Obama’s beatific smile as worth 10 points in the booth this November, is talking about how “frightening” it is that the state might start dictating to churches in matters of conscience. If they’ve got Tingles saying stuff like that, imagine what undecided religious voters are thinking.
A key White House adviser on faith issues said Tuesday that several organizations with ties to the administration have approached President Obama’s aides about finding a resolution to fast-growing controversy over a new rule requiring many Catholic institutions to offer birth control and other contraception services as part of employees’ health care coverage.
“There are conversations right now to arrange a meeting to talk with folks about how this policy can be nuanced,” said Pastor Joel C. Hunter, a Florida megachurch pastor who has grown personally close to Obama and advised his White House on religious issues. “This is so fixable, and we just want to get into the conversation.”…
One possible compromise was introduced as early as last October, long before the issue hit the national headlines, when one of Obama’s outside advisers drafted a plan that would have allowed women working for Catholic institutions to receive coverage directly from insurers rather than from the objecting institutions themselves.
Carney said this afternoon that they “will be working with those organizations and individuals who have concerns” on implementing the new policy before it goes into effect next year, but Axelrod was a bit stronger this morning in the MSNBC clip you’ll find below. Quote: “We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventive care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions.” As with Komen and Planned Parenthood, I’m surprised the White House is as surprised as it seems to be about the backlash it’s getting. The thinking, I assume, was that they could get away with it because, as Ed notes in his new column, Catholics just aren’t that socially conservative. Fifty-four percent of them voted for The One in 2008; meanwhile, in today’s new PRRI poll on the contraception issue, 58 percent of Catholics thought all employers should cover birth control in their health plans at no cost and 52 percent thought that policy should extend to religiously-affiliated employers. (Among Catholic voters specifically, though, the split was 45/52.) If there was nothing else happening to keep the issue cooking, it might have faded before election day. I think Team O might have been caught off-guard by the intensity and uniformity of the pushback from Catholic bishops, though, especially since they’re used to getting cover from many of them on other Democratic agenda items like immigration. And of course, Romney went after this issue hard and will probably be pressed by Santorum into going after it harder still. That’s a risky simultaneous surge of political demand and supply for the White House, so here comes the climbdown.
Exit question from Ace’s co-blogger Laura W: Why did Catholic organizations support ObamaCare in the first place when they knew there was a risk that it would force conflicts of conscience like this one? Did they think it didn’t matter how other groups were burdened so long as they themselves got a pass?
It’s abortifacients being mandated also, not just contraceptives. I am so thankful that the Church said that they will not follow this law. Finally a major organization standing up to the Regime.
you would love my facebook page. Im political all day long. I get good responses too :)
that would be nice. Of course, it’s easier said than done - they are operating on narrow margins and are in a tight spot.
The big question is....even if they are off the dole - the mandate still applies here doesn’t it?
That’s how scary this is. Because Obama is trying to take control over the entire healthcare industry - does anyone operating in “healthcare” -even completely private outfits - have to abide by the rules?
RE: .even if they are off the dole - the mandate still applies here doesn’t it?
THAT WOULD OF COURSE, BE THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP. If a private individual can be FORCED to buy healthcare UNDER THREAT OF A FINE whether he wants to or not (which is what the individual mandate in Obamacare does ), then there is nothing private anymore.
They will pretend to have second thoughts long enough to get this issue out of the headlines.
Beware of a feint. The underlying problem is that Obamacare gave bureaucrats the authority to issue regulations like this. Until Obamacare as a whole is repealed or found unconstitutional, any “compromise” tendered by the White House is meaningless. To accept such a “compromise” would be to acknowledge the authority to make the regulations in the first place. Obamacare gave Sebelius that authority. If she now retracts her regs and the bishops and press all gush over her magnanimity and kindness, it only reinforces that we attend upon her right hand as humble maidservants because of Obamacare.
If the bishops understood what they are up against, they’d never mention overturning the regulations without also mentioning the need to overturn the “legislation” that spawned these regulations.
Santorum would be well-placed to focus attention on this, in a way Romney can’t even begin to do. Unfortunately, the bishops would probably leave him to twist in the wind, once the regs were magnanimously retractedd and the libertarian conservatives would stab him in the back while he twists in the wind, being spit upon as a homophobe and woman-hater and so forth by the lefties.
If Catholics, Evangelicals and libertarians could make common cause backing him, it could be a watershed election.
Unless, of course, Gingrich plays spoiler and hands the nomination to Mitt. In which case we are stuck with Obamacare and ten times worse
forever. RIP American Republic.
Mariner, you’re hitting key points. This cannot be merely a matter of Obama and the bishops “refining” or “negotiating” or “compromising” or “reshaping” a few clauses of Obamacare. This cannot be a small legal issue, or even a large moral issue. True, it’s a moral issue for Catholics, but even that is missing the point.
This is a BIG issue for ALL Americans because it is a Constitutional issue. It is a very clear and simple matter of the Federal Govt grossly and unprecedentedly violating the First Amendment.
I hope the bishops have the vision and courage to fight on those grounds, otherwise we will all lose. May gain some temporary concession (ha, remember Stupak?) but it’s not enough. We need Obama to acknowledge, and if not him, the highest Court in the land, that no president or govt agency may order a valid religious organization to violate their spiritual beliefs.
Some of us won’t. But I think too many will, including a lot of bishops. Pray that I’m wrong.
Because, then American Catholics will know the only way to save their freedom is to oust Obama!
“We need Obama to acknowledge, and if not him, the highest Court in the land, that no president or govt agency may order a valid religious organization to violate their spiritual beliefs.”
Yes, we need that. The trouble is that, right now, the law of the land gives him that authority. It’s an unconstitutional law, but getting it recognized as unconstitutional and repealing it . . . . we have to try, but possession is nine-tenths of the law. Right now Sebelius possesses enormous authority granted her by Obamacare.
Better be careful. If I knew all your thoughts and actions there's a good chance I could declare YOU not Catholic.
I got you. The logic of this, however, I’m afraid may not be clear to the average American. They still don’t seem to understand that this means THE GOVERNMENT, not your DOCTOR, may decide virtually everything about health “care” - what it is, who gets it, when, where, why and how...or not. (We’ve all heard the horrors of Britain.)
Until the majority of Americans realize what Obamacare means (not free healthcare for all!), and that it’s indeed unconstitutional, there won’t be the big momentum needed to chuck it.
Of course several states have filed lawsuits...what is the chance of that succeeding, would you say? And where is Congress on all this? Why aren’t Republicans banding together to create some heat over this bill and the fact it should not stand? (thanks for your comments)
It was done awkwardly, but the narcissistic commandant got a big kick out of it.
Such power in the hands of one elected official who is supposed to be serving us, not having us grovel to him so as not to be forced to go against our consciences and our Faith.
Couldn’t agree more. As someone said today on Fox, the toothpaste’s already out of the tube. If this administration can conceive of the idea and mandate it, that’s already enough show-and-tell. Do we need to know anything more to reject Obamacare and those who forced it upon us?
That's a bonus.
Is there a link to the statement that's from?
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.