www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Test of Fire: Election 2012

He is and shall be!

As far as I'm concerned the only time religious liberty would be taken away is if the law mandated that individuals must use these services; which it does not. It mandates that institutions that hire believers and non-believers provide health insurance policies that cover reproductive healthcare services to which they are entitled under the law whether those services are against the moral principles of the institution or not. The law, even before the compromise, makes an exception to those institutions, who by their nature, hire only believers. I really feel that Catholic bishops and those who support them, have over-reacted on this issue. As I inferred in my previous post; is a Catholic sinning for paying premiums for a health insurance policy that covers reproductive services that violate Church teaching? I think not, but I stand to be corrected. Back to my 70 year-old cave.

In the 1850s, a majority of Americans living in the North were opposed to slavery in principle but not really engaged with the issue--few knew any blacks, let alone slaves, and the South was far away, so out of sight, out of mind.

That changed with the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act, which required all American citizens to actively aid in the return of escaped slaves to their masters. This, in effect, made all Americans complicit in the "Peculiar Institution": whether you were a rabid abolitionist or just passively anti-slavery, you were being dragged into the system against your will. Nothing did more to galvanize Northern opinion against slavery than the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, precisely because of its violation of personal conscience.

Now, the PPACA mandate does the same thing--one way or another, it drags people into the business of providing contraception and abortion. The Obama Administration just runs roughshod over the concept of "conscience exemptions", which have had a precedent in U.S. law going back more than a century. The compromises offered by the Administration are nothing but fig leaves--or, if you please, a disingenuous money-laundering scheme.

OK, says the Administration, if you don't want to offer contraception or abortion services, we will allow you to buy insurance where the premium does not cover those things. Instead, we'll direct the insurance companies to offer them "for free". But, in real life (as opposed to Democratic Party propaganda), nothing is free: the insurance companies incur a cost for offering such "free" services, and they pass that cost along as an increased premium for all subscribers--including the very institutions that do not want to pay for contraception or abortion services. One would have to be willfully blind or morally obtuse not to see that this is merely substituting indirect for direct payments, and thus, as morally dubious as the original mandate.

Rejecting the mandate leaves individuals, businesses and religious institutions with the options either of paying a penalty (now known as a tax) or incurring criminal sanctions for refusing to do that. And for most small businesses, the cost of the penalties would simply be crippling.

Were I the Church, though, I would simply refuse to buy the insurance or pay the tax, and dare the government to arrest the bishops and the directors and administrators of Catholic schools, hospitals and charities. Of course, I seriously doubt the bishops have the samosas for that kind of demonstration.

This is quite inflammatory and judgmental, much to others concerns about the video. Divisive rhetoric and finger pointing rarely works to convert people to one side or the other, it often pushes the person further away.

As much as it saddens me, I do not think a pro-life politicians views will ever come to pass. We have had a Republican (read "Pro-Life" party) controlled Congress with a Republican president, yet no legislation barring abortion. Politics and laws are not going to change abortions occurring, but faith and love will.

Maybe instead of the political finger-pointing and divisiveness we can focus on the real problem at hand, the Crisis of Faith in our country.

Now don't get me wrong, I do enjoy a good political debate.

Erie Byz makes the mistake of (a) thinking that abortion is actually a Federal issue; and (b) thinking that the Constitution was set up to allow things to get done. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion a concern of the Federal government, and the Constitution is intended to make it hard to get things done. If there has been no movement on making abortion illegal in the United States, it may be that there just isn't an overwhelming consensus among the people for that action, and until there is, nothing will happen, no matter how well-intentioned the politicians may be.

The best that can be expected at the present moment is increasing restrictions on abortion and the appointment of judges to the Federal judiciary who will sustain those restrictions--and, one can hope, eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.

But even if Roe is overturned, all that happens is the issue returns to the states, where it will be resolved according to the political consensus within each individual state. You will end up with a patchwork of abortion laws, in which some states ban the procedure altogether, others restrict it with different degrees of severity, and yet others basically continue the status quo.

What we do know is, in general, Republicans favor further restrictions on abortion and the appointment of judges inclined to overturn Roe on its legal merits (or lack thereof), whereas Democrats have made abortion the one issue around which to unite its disparate coalition of otherwise incompatible interest groups. And that's the choice you have.

Stuart summarizes the reality very well.

Personally, I will never vote for the "least harmful" candidate and enable the awful status quo to thrive. If it's not someone I want in power, they don't get my support.

Imagine for a moment if we all did that.

Sorry y'all! I just thought they were well done.

I think the ad is well done and obviously I completely disagree with JJP. If you haven't the courage to vote they why pretend to be a citizen?

I did not make the mistake at all, I was just commenting on the hype that it is a presidential year. Stuart, many of us our much smarter and wiser than you give us credit for, we just tend to keep our fingers quiet.

You have also affirmed my point that nothing is going to happen politically. Our only hope is change of hearts. I also believe that the only thing that will happen in the near future is restricting access and slowly inching our way towards complete outlawing.

"Before Kingdoms change, men must change"

Who said anything about courage? Where is the courage in settling for less than you know should be asked of our leaders?

Accepting the status quo marks a lack of courage and your children's children will bear the consequences of your low standards. Sadly, mine will as well.

This is a point that needs to be fully understood. A product (for example: chemical abortion & contraception supplied by health insurance) has two parties, a supplier and a user. The supplier is an employer and the user is the employee. Your argument is that a user has rights, but the supplier does not?

If left unchecked it is almost a certainty that within 10 years Catholic institutions (hospitals, schools, nursing homes, colleges, seminaries, monasteries, housing, etc) will be mandated to support abortion, rights based on sexual preference, and termination of surgical, therapeutic and nursing for "non-productive" patients. And every individual working or volunteering in these institutions will REQUIRED to comply can be be arrested or sued, at the very least he will lose his job.

There will be no recourse, no appeal because this administration is setting the precedent that there be no "conscience clause." They have fought tooth and nail to deny conscience exemptions.

I think we all have at least one relative who is an employee, client, patient or volunteer in a Catholic (this really isn't just a "Catholic" issue)institution.

Most Obama supporters will claim it will never happen. Just remember that just up until a few weeks ago the President did not support homosexual marriage....now it is a firm part of his party's platform, with his full support.

THIS....is the real issue, not contraception.

jjp,

Then write yourself in and see how that helps.

CDL

Huh?

Here is an example of the integrity of the present Administration. This article is about HHS, the department which is mandating acceptable theology. Reference: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...y-rates.aspx?e_cid=20120806_DNL_artNew_1


FDA Secretly Monitored Mammogram Whistleblowers' Emails

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Six of the monitored scientists and doctors recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA, charging that the agency violated their constitutional rights to privacy by monitoring lawful activity in personal email accounts, and using that information to harass and ultimately relieve some of them of their positions.

According to the Washington Post6:

"All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes. Copies of the e-mails show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the margins. The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers."

The FDA has declined to comment on the allegations, stating it does not comment on cases involved with litigation. However, according to internal FDA documents obtained by the plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency had asked the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) inspector general to conduct an investigation back in May 2010, stating suspicions that the plaintiffs had improperly disclosed confidential business information about the devices.

The HHS inspector general's office found no evidence of criminal conduct, stating the doctors and scientists had legal right to share their concerns with Congress and journalists. Hence no investigation was launched. But the FDA was not satisfied.

On June 28 that same year, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health wrote that, "We have obtained new information confirming the existence of information disclosures that undermine the integrity and mission of the FDA and, we believe, may be prohibited by law," and again requested action be taken against the employees in question. After consulting with general prosecutors, the inspector general declined the second request for an investigation as well. Now the question is whether the agency monitored their employees within legal limits, and whether the purpose of the extensive monitoring was reasonable. Senator Charles Grassley doesn't seem to think so, stating that:

"The FDA has a huge responsibility to protect public health and safety. It's hard to see how managers apparently thought it was a good use of time to shadow agency scientists and monitor their e-mail accounts for legally protected communications with Congress."