Posted on 02/01/2013 9:09:08 AM PST by reegs
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is announcing a broader opt-out for religious nonprofits that object to providing health insurance that covers birth control.
The administration is allowing religious nonprofits to offer coverage that does not include contraception. In such a case, a third-party issuer will handle all business related to providing birth-control coverage for women, according to a source familiar with the changes who spoke only on condition of anonymity.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The problem is that the religious organization has to admit the government has authority over it, as a prerequisite of opting out.
....people say to me, “But the early Church didn’t practice civil disobedience.” Didn’t they? You don’t know your history again. When those Christians that we all talk about so much allowed themselves to be thrown into the arena, when they did that, from their view it was a religious thing. They would not worship anything except the living God. But you must recognize from the side of the Roman state, there was nothing religious about it at all — it was purely civil. The Roman Empire had disintegrated until the only unity it had was its worship of Caesar. You could be an atheist; you could worship the Zoroastrian religion... You could do anything. They didn’t care. It was a civil matter, and when those Christians stood up there and refused to worship Caesar, from the side of the state, they were rebels. They were in civil disobedience and they were thrown to the beasts.
— Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto
...”You cannot serve God and Mammon” and Matt. Chapters 5-7
Well said, sir. Well said. I ain’t gonna pay for SFA.
Rumplestilskin
I’d like to see the clause where Obama’s allowed to rewrite the law unilaterally. In any case, this comes on the heels of a judge dismissing one lawsuit because Obama’s not done rewriting the law yet:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/24b5a11e-759f-5a1e-923f-1db75bb30c8c.html
Excerpt:
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross dismissed the lawsuit Tuesday, saying it was premature because of the government’s intent to make changes in the law and because religious and nonprofit groups were given until August to comply.
“The challenged regulation is not sufficiently final for review,” Ross wrote. “Plaintiffs also lack standing to challenge the present regulatory requirement because they are not subject to that requirement ...”
We can guess who will be paying the third party—you and I. So taxpayers will fund free “reproductive health care”. In other words, abortion.
Obama is desperate because he’s afraid that the entire “birth-control mandate” will be struck down on First Amendment grounds. We can’t let him adopt some half-assed effort at a “compromise” that will result in “free” abortions for millions of women paid for by all of us.
Correct. This ruling does not help Hobby Lobby and their lawsiut. Why should an organization or company be able to “opt-out” (not really) but an owner of a business as a “person” does not have the same right?
“We can guess who will be paying the third party—you and I. So taxpayers will fund free “reproductive health care”. In other words, abortion.”
That is true, and I don’t approve of it, but that’s a separate issue. We of course do that today through medicaid and other government programs.
No. Actually, it’s like a thief robbing your house, getting caught, and offering to let you know which pawn shop he used to dispose of your valuables. He’s not giving up anything....let alone his freedom to keep robbing us.
“This is like a thief robbing your house, getting caught, and then deciding they’ll give you back your stuff.”
Without a doubt it gave the the ability to be (unconstitutionally) arbitrary and capacious. When is someone going to call them out on that. So many things have been held up as unconstitutional due to being arbitrary and capacious. Except this law.
The separation of church and state sounds great to the leftists....until they get to control its impact.
Like race THE LAW should be blind to religion. When it is not - we should know we have a serious problem.
Color blind law is good.
Religious blind law is good also.
blood money.
it is not a compromise. it’s a technicality.
what do you expect from o-hole? more blood sacrifices for his father.
Obamacare, and most everything surrounding its passage, are exactly what the 2nd amendment was written for.
It is an interesting and pervasive issue. Congress delegates power to a commission or agency, and sometimes the rules (which are a step removed from the law) become the sticky point. It is very real that the executive writes plenty of law. Not just regulation, but also legislation that is put in the hopper by a cooperative congress-skunk.
Like sunlight, garlic or a cross to a vampire, one thing that congress avoids as much as possible is accountability. Congress could clear this mess up - it passed it, including the parts that enable and circumscribe the regulation creation power.
All you need to know in the very first sentence.
If the administration offers it, the administration can take it away. Blessed be the name of the 0.
Washington’s corts consist of Hand picked employees of the Federal Government.
They rarely if ever act against their appointing masters, instead the Federal corts serve more as a rubber stamp upon Washington Lawlessness than anything else.
A sad mocking joke on the name justice. Do not expect releive or any form of justice from them. They do only what they were appointed by the Federal government to do.
“According to this logic: a group of individuals has the right to religious freedom, but a single individual does not.
This is not a line of reasoning...this is absurdity!”
That logic is the foundation of post-1960 leftist thinking, as well as that of Marxism from which it was borrowed.
Individuals are pawns of the artificially defined groups who’s interest they(politicians) define as their self-appointed leaders.
Its the really funny thing about leftist ideology & thinking. Pure unadulterated corruption when you think about it.
Are you channeling the preferences of sexually opportunistic males, by any chance? Nothing personal.
I mean, I'm not looking for TMI. Sexually, about you, nothing personal.
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.