Becket Fund on Stossel discussing HHS mandate

[chrisdernay]

No one is taking away your right to birth control. But the mandate is trying to take away religious rights.

[jfsfrnd]

Belmont Abbey College receives federal money for financial aid. It is not a totally private college.

[37tezza]

Yeah, kind of like forcing a Jewish organization to serve pork because not all the employees are Jewish. Sure, not a religious mandate, though.

[jdbohdan]

"one hundred thousand complaints,..that's millions of Americans" ? Someone should teach her math.

No one is being forced to use the contraception. It is a health mandate, not a religious one.

[donnawanna100]

Repeal the entire law and there would be no problem.His violations of the constitution will continue unabated until he is removed.He compromise substitutes violation of the First Amendment with violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment

[thereisaseason]

Ridiculous. Now that (unfortunately) Obama has caved to the religious community and issues ADDITIONAL exceptions for religious non-profits, will you please remove this video. It is simply wrong, demonstrably so.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason Then demonstrate it. The young lady seems to be reasonable, here. It is the State forcing itself and its cultural norms on religious organizations and individuals. The State is saying: "Breaking your religious convictions, or break the law and be fined." Effectively, the State is discriminating against principled objectors (many of whom are not religious, btw, and are merely classical ethicists), and fining them for merely practicing their religion. They have legal priority.

[thereisaseason]

@BalladoftheWindfish It is wrong because you are NOT being forced to "break your religious convictions." (A little dramatic there, Ballad [cool screen name]). The orig'l law exempts churches. Their respective business org (hospitals, etc) still had to comply like any other business in the U.S. Even so, Obama issued a further exemption for relig-based non-profits. What the hell else do you want? But, still the moaning. This is not about relig freedom; it's about contraception and it's BS.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason The mandate as it stands still makes conscientious objectors morally complicit in providing morally objective "services." The Administration is saying, "We're not going to require you to pay for contracept­ives. Instead, we're going to make it so you can't buy plans that don't provide it." The moral situation is exactly the same as before. Moreover, it is naive to think that the costs will not be indirectly payed by the employers...

1/2

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason ...(continued) The "free" contraceptives become for the insurers the cost of doing business, and that is inevitably paid for by someone else (in this case, the conscientious objectors). For these reasons, the "compromise" is a gimmick. Moreover, the mandate is very pernicious in that it allows the State to arbitrarily decide just who and what is a religious organization or not. It does not take a lot of imagination to see why that is dangerous.

2a/2

[thereisaseason]

@BalladoftheWindfish The line forms to the rear,dude! You and millions of other people have to synthesize your religious sentiments with the greater collaborative good of all your other fellow citizens. The gov't requires me to do things I am against (religiously or otherwise) ALL THE TIME. That why they call it a society. You are not alone. Ask the Mormons, ask any number of religious folks that have rules against some aspecty of their "faith". You are not "targeted". Get over yourself.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason ...(continued) But yeah, as it stands, the government is presenting two options to these targeted individuals: comply (and break your religious convictions) or break the law and be fined. That substantially burdens the consistent living out of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and natural religion informed by right reason an natural law. I assure you, this is very much a fight over religious liberty, and attributing other motives is simply wrong.

2b/2

[thereisaseason]

@BalladoftheWindfish Or the third, reality-based option: Comply and enjoy the fact that you are operating within the law. Futher, choose not to take BC pills. Live according to your dictates.

No, this has NOTHING to do with religious liberty. It is an hysterical, right-wing fear-fest, exacerbated by a moderate holding the WH, and fueled by the "Tea Party", Rush Limbaugh, and Faux News. Seriously, you are WAY over the top here.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason You have not responded to anything I have written, you are merely doubling down and insisting that I am "WAY over the top." You do acknowledge that the mandate forces individuals to compromise their religious convictions, yes? Well, either that is unconstitutional or not. No in-between. Merely saying, "Hey, get over it," is not helpful, let alone an argument in itself.

[thereisaseason]

@BalladoftheWindfish You're wrong. I answered that question long ago. Clearly (as I've said repeatedly), the mandate does not force individual to compromise their religious convictions. What else do you want me to say? And, interestingly, yes, it is unconstitutional, but probaly for reasons opposite than you hold. It's unconst because it is part of a law that carves out unique rights for religious orgs. We should pass reasonalbe labor laws and enforce them for all. Often done..

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason Where did you answer that question?

[thereisaseason]

@BalladoftheWindfish Multiple places. Read back. Getting boring. Peace.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason I hope you can condescend, then, because I simply do not see how you have refuted the fact that this a threat to religious liberty.

[thereisaseason]

@BalladoftheWindfish YOU'VE BEEN SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED!!! You've been given FAR more consideration than most of us. You've been given an unconstitutional carved-out exemption. Please read the newspaper.

[BalladoftheWindfish]

@thereisaseason See, that is just an assertion. You have not supported that assertion, nor have you responded to my argument that the "exemption" still presents the same moral and practical situation.

[thereisaseason]

@BalladoftheWindfish It is not an assertion, it is a fact that you have been given an exemption. This is just getting silly. I have preseted that your "moral situation" is no different than millions face when the gov't establishes law that are in conflict with their beliefs. Happens all the time. You failure to understand done not constitue non-response on my part.

[tcorris]

@thereisaseason So it is okay to force say the archdiocese of Washington (which self insures) to buy everyone condoms and abortive week after pills? The Church believes that both are evil and that the abortion that the week after pill causes is no different than murder. Please explain how this forcing of secular beliefs (on pain of exorbitant fines) on a religion (that finds such beliefs repugnant) is in harmony with the 1st amendment guarantee of the FREE exercise of religion? 

[thereisaseason]

@tcorris Self insured orgs do not pay a premium; they pay on the claims that actually occur. Thus, if no one actually USES BC pills, then they won't have to pay. Simple. So, it goes back to people and what they really do. And the vast, vast majority of women (even Cath women) use BC during their sex active years. Same argument for abortion, etc. This is a contrived, silly argument that has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with controlling women and sexuality.

[tcorris]

@thereisaseason Oh so that make it okay. A protestant employee at Catholic University buys rubbers and charges it to the Archdiocese of Washington which, as a self insured entity must have the Trojan Condom Company as an account payable. Their protestant employees may want a week after pill and since they don't see abortion as murder they are free to charge the archdiocese which does.

The Bible warns in 2 Timothy not to participate in the sins of others.

Who is forcing their beliefs on who?

[thereisaseason]

@tcorris As I've said many times in this vid's comment section, I am morally opposed to war. Nonetheless, the gov't taxes me and, in my name, kills tens of thousands in my name. I'm req'd to pay.

[tcorris]

@thereisaseason War is bad, but it is not intrinsically evil as abortion is. The Church has taught this since the didache (the teachings of the Apostles) around the year 70. This has been the constant teaching since then. By the way the didache discussed the evils of the procuring of potions that would cause abortion - the very thing required by this law with the week after pill.

[thereisaseason]

@tcorris What an odd response. Apparently YOUare the arbiter of how bad an "evil" has to be for it to be relevant. War is much worse: therefore, pre your logic, the Gov't MUST exempt me. Doesn't matter what you belive. It's what I believe. What's not to understand about that? Further, you speak of this 1900 y-o doc (actually 96 ce) as if it's some sort of fact-based rule book. Enjoy it, but it has nothing to do with me or my rights. BTW, #2 also says: do not corrupt boys - now THAT's funny! 

[tcorris]

@thereisaseason I use the 1900 year old doc to show that what the Church is resisting is based on an unchanged teaching of the Church. You don't have to believe and frankly it is unimportant for you to believe what the Church teaches. That is because the Constitution bars the Federal government from acting in a way that prohibits the free exercise.

[thereisaseason]

@tcorris Yet, in spite of that (largely ignored) constituional provision, your faith has been given special, extended rights. That's the unconstituional part. I understood why you referred to the Didache; my response was that it does'nt matter how many books you have, how revered they are to you, how old your tradition is, it is all irrelevant in a secular society. You stated a raking of evils, and based it on this book, and offered it as justification for your special priviledge. Not goodl.

[tcorris]

@thereisaseason So you have a constitutional right to free condoms? I guess I will have to search for that clause again. It must be somewhere near the Constitutional right to freedom FROM religion.

I refer to those documents because this is a free exercise of religion issue that is being interfered with. Nobody is trying to take your precious condoms. They are cheap and plentiful. There are places were they can be had for free. This isn't about free condoms, but who pays for them.

[thereisaseason]

@tcorris Now you're just being silly. I'm done. Final advice: Google "Implied Rights" to learn about how the constitution meets challenges of new generations. Of course the word "condom" (who said anything about condoms?) is not in the constitution! Neither is "God", "Jesus", "Air Force", "AK-47", "Internet" or many other phrases that may be relevant. A secular government can't carve out unique rights for everyone's individual beliefs, as Cath's want here, even if they have old books.

[vaeates]

@thereisaseason Please, no red herrings and diversionary tactics. This Health Care imposition has nothing to do with the Constitution and is violating the religious conviction of promoting a culture of life and virtue. This is not an argument about what an individual has done or the mistakes of a few misguided people. This is a matter of public policy and the unlawful actions of a Federal Government that is becoming more tyrannical and less respectful of individual rights.

[thereisaseason]

@vaeates Red Herring? I was responding specifically to a guy when he made the astounding obtuse comment about the word "condom" not being in the contstitution. What's you deal, Skippy?

And I'll tell you what "tyrannical" and disrespectful of individual rights is: it's GW Bush eavesdropping on private citizens, detaining them, & going to war illegally. When a matter of insurance co-pays reaches that level, I'll take you comments seriously. Until then, get a clue. Back to your Tea Party.

[thereisaseason]

@tcorris You see, we live in a very diverse and multicultural society (your inner Glenn Beck hates those words!). Gov'n't has to act in the collective best interest of the entire society. We ALL have things that are impacted by law which we are agasinst morally. It's up to us as constructive citizens to navigate our way through this. In general, many Caths are simply acting like spoiled 12 year olds. Sorry you can't have everything your way. If you don't want to use BC, don't.

[tcorris]

@thereisaseason If you want to buy condoms, by all means buy them by the case. The Catholic Church does not wish to be forced by law to have the Trojan Condom Company as one of its accounts payables. For the Archdiocese of Washington, which self insures, they would be one of the insurance companies that would be REQUIRED to pay for week-after pills (abortifacients) which they consider murder, condoms and sterilization. It is the government forcing beliefs on the Church, not the other way around.

[acortez1964]

The wolf in sheep,s clothing has finally reared its ugly head. Obama is an enemy of the people, he is against christians, he is in favor of abortion, REALLY!. UNMASK Obama, vote him out, vote for anyone else.

[lovellespice]

that is one brave young woman.. :)

[khildebrand]

Socialists like Mark Lloyd (FCC czar) are not interested in allowing free religious liberty. They and others in the Obama administration believe their "educated & enlightened" sense of fairness out ways and even makes wrong any belief in moral absolutes. They want and will push for full access to all religious groups. After changing public opinion of abortion from evil to acceptance in the 70's they see the same goal for any religious stand. Ask a liberal, they want to teach us their beliefs.

[sasurfman]

@freakyfreakayfresh

It is the 'business' of all of mankind when one of us makes the 'choice' to take the life of another of us. Some choices are wrong, and at the top of the list is the taking of the life of an innocent, defenseless human being.

[freakayfreakayfresh]

@sasurfman er....I know that. Thats what im trying to defend here.....

[sasurfman]

@freakayfreakayfresh er ... my bad. That should have been directed to jerico641.

[sasurfman]

@Tibberclaw

What you suggest is nothing more than age or size discrimination. The dignity of the human being does not depend on the size of the human being. All living human beings, no matter what their size, no matter what their location, have an inherent right to keep the life that they have. Just because one is bigger and more powerful, does not mean one has a right to take the life of another human being.

[Tibberclaw]

The religious argument is outrageous. You are really worried about killing a newly fertilized egg? It's a microscopic collection of cells with no nervous system or consciousness. There are several thousand times more cells in the brain of a fly than there are in these embryos.

Of course, they claim the "soul" is what makes the difference, but just think---sometimes the embryo splits and forms identical twins, or sometimes two embryos will fuse back together as a chimera. What of the souls?

[xwarhammerx]

"They received a hundred thousand complaints, thats millions of Americans." How does that make sense? 

[WilliamBrothers]

@xwarhammerx She means it is representative of millions of Americans.

[w1rosado]

I'd be interested to know what colleges like Brigham Young or Liberty, where sexual contact outside of marriage will get you fired or expelled based on the violation of a code that all students and faculty sign at entry, would deal with this HHS issue. Could anyone that used birth control/contraception be dismissed for failing to meet the contractual obligation. I'm not Mormon, but I saw how BYU handled Brandon Davies on the basketball team and I thought it was incredible...

[jerico641]

WTF do you people want? Millions more unwanted babies?? That, to me, is immoral!

[murphcon]

@jerico641

Really? So you believe the moral thing to do is to kill unwanted children. We Catholics believe the procedure of killing children should be illegal. My daughter was unwanted but her mother spared her from the knife and gave her up for adoption. She is 100% beautiful in mind and body but the saddest thing is that for every adopted child in the USA, there are 50 who are murdered.

[jerico641]

@murphcon

No, I don't believe in killing unwanted children; where did you get that idea?

[freakayfreakayfresh]

@jerico641 haha, well, you did state it pretty clearly...as Catholics, we believe that life starts at the moment of conception. So, the use of the morning after pill and other such preventative services would fall into our belief of early abortion, or the killing of a baby.

[jerico641]

@freakayfreakayfresh

I would certainly disagree, and I'd never refer to someone as a killer for exercising a choice that is none of my business. And you consider the morning after pill to be murder? That's crazy, if you'll pardon me. It prevents the egg from even being fertilized; there's not even any conception! Also, I once worked with a lady who was a devout catholic; she and her husband, at 25 years old, already had 8 children because they wouldn't use contraception. (con'd.)

[jerico641]

@freakayfreakayfresh

(con'd): how is that fair for the children? These people both made wages just a bit over the poverty line, so their kids had very little and the rest of our staff would frequently bring in clothing and food items for them. When I left the store where we had worked together, she was pregnant with her 9th child, even though her doctor had warned her that it could be dangerous to deliver another one. And all because of their religion! How does this make sense?

[MrTheRealist]

abortion and contraception are not HEALTH CARE!!!...Even if were....the first amendment requires that government STAY OUT OF THE CHURCH'S BUSINESS!

[jerico641]

@MrTheRealist

The the church will have to stay out of the health care business...