Catholic Bishops in a snit over mandated "free" birth control...

and who's fault is that?

Since birth control became available in the 1960's, the Catholic Church has done a disservice to it's faithful.  They have refused to teach the reasons for the Church's position on the immorality of birth control, and most priests have slithered out of the fray by telling women they would have to "follow their conscience" - wink, wink.

Now Health and Human Services has said that birth control, including sterilization and the "morning after pill", will be provided free of all co-pays in all insurance plans.  If you have a religious exemption, it will expire in one year.  Don't like it - too bad.

With a few exceptions, the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) backed Obamacare as long as it didn't provide abortions.  I think we all remember how well that worked out.  And now, Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with this newest decision handed down by Kathleen Sibelius.  

This is the same sister who was bounced off of the prestigious Holy Family Hospital Foundation board over her support for the federal health care bill.  Now she's disappointed in Obama?  Perhaps she could send a note to Obama written with the ceremonial pen she received when the president signed Obamacare into law.

A few days ago, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan lashed out at the Obama Administration for forcing religious organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience.

“Almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans… Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.”

This is what he posted on his blog March 15th, 2010

This is a very significant week for a cause championed by an overwhelming majority of Americans: health care reform. Our prayers are with our president and elected officials in D.C. as they work hard at bringing about a bill that is just and good for the country we love.
Thoughtful Catholics are especially attentive to this effort, but we find ourselves in a tough spot.

On the one hand, we are enthusiastic about universal health care. The Catholic community in the United States, led by brave sisters, has been on the front line of tending lovingly for the sick and frail for centuries, way before government ever got into it.  The bishops have been advocating universal health care for nearly a century. So, we sure want to see it work, and appreciate the efforts of the president and both parties in Congress to bring it home. source

I like Cardianl-designate Dolan, and for the most part he does a good job.  However, he and the other bishops dropped the ball on Obamacare - big time.  Aside from the abortion issue, the bill is over two thousand pages of onerous mandates, regulations, and hidden surprises that will destroy the quality and accessibility of decent health care in this country.  Nothing too Catholic about that.  The real losers in this whole debacle are the Catholics who have been kept ignorant of their faith. 

CatholicVote.org just posted "Obama Hands GOP a ‘Golden Opportunity’ to Win Back the Catholic Vote in 2012."  Allow me to ask why they voted in overwhelming numbers for the wildly pro-abortion Obama to begin with?  Could it be the lack of valid Catholic teaching that has been absent for at least 50 years?  Does CatholicVote really believe that Catholics are going to turn away from Obama over mandatory "free" birth control since the majorority of Catholics are themselves using it?


More:


USCCB Statement

Philothea on Phire:   "Catholic" Politicians: Selling Out the Church

Excellent article from Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus Notre Dame Law School, explaining why Obamacare is against real Catholic teaching. 


The Catholic Church in the Obama Era 
Oct. 22, 2010
 

Congressman Steve King tells it like it is...

and we thank him!



I really like the fact that he used the term "Obamacare" at least a gazillion times in 10 minutes.  The last few minutes are particularly good.

Michele Bachmann/Steve King letter to Boehner et al...

stolen borrowed entirely from Red State.

I agree with Doug Ross (who also "borrowed" the letter) that is imperative this be circulated and read by all Americans.  Since Doug and I committed the initial sin, feel free to re-post.

From Michele Bachmann:

Last night my colleague Rep. Steve King (IA-05) and I drafted a letter to Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor and Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers urging them to include language to defund ObamaCare and rescind the $105,464,000,000 in funds already appropriated to implementing the health care law.

Next Wednesday the House will consider another Continuing Resolution. Including language to defund ObamaCare is our opportunity to stop the flow of funds to ObamaCare once and for all. Our suggested language is, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this or any previous Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to carry out the provisions of Public Law 111-148, Public Law 111-152, or any amendment made by either such Public Law.”

All members of Congress are encouraged to contact my office to join us in the effort to prevent taxpayers’ money from going to the implementation of this unconstitutional program.

The letter reads as follows:

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, and Chairman Rogers,

We very much appreciate your leadership in bringing H.R. 2 to the floor, which resulted in a unanimous Republican vote to repeal ObamaCare. This was an essential step in achieving our universal Republican goal to bring about the final, 100 percent repeal of this law. No strategy to accomplish this goal could succeed without this House vote.

From the moment legislation to repeal ObamaCare was first introduced, it has been widely discussed that a successful repeal strategy would center on first winning a Republican majority in the House, then holding a clean, up or down vote on repeal, and then prohibiting funding for the implementation or enforcement of ObamaCare. We must ensure that this strategy remains on track and on schedule.

The success of our effort to shut off funding for ObamaCare will hinge on the leverage points of this first session of the 112th Congress - namely the CR, which expires on March 18th, and the vote on raising the debt ceiling. We recognize the work to defund ObamaCare began with the inclusion of language in H.R. 1 to restrict annual appropriations from being used to implement the law. However, we also recognize that even this language, if enacted, leaves on the table $105.5 billion in automatically appropriated funds for the law’s implementation. We cannot successfully defund ObamaCare without shutting off these automatically appropriated funds.

While some have argued that our defunding efforts in the CR should be limited only to those annual funds actually provided by the CR, we disagree. If we do not stand our ground on the CR, leverage it as the “must pass bill” that it is, and use it to stop the $105.5 billion in automatically appropriated funds, ObamaCare will be implemented on our watch. We will also have conceded a significant amount of ground on this issue and will find it difficult, if not impossible, to regain the strategic advantage in future legislative vehicles.

Consequently, we ask that the following language, or more effective language, be added to the FY11 CR to cut off both the annual and automatic appropriations for ObamaCare’s implementation: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this or any previous Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to carry out the provisions of Public Law 111-148, Public Law 111-152, or any amendment made by either such Public Law.”

It is essential that the above language be included in the CR. We, the undersigned, will not vote in support of a continuing resolution that is void of this crucial funding prohibition.

Sincerely,

Steve King        Michele Bachmann

Breaking: Obamacare Unconstitutional (again)

From the conclusion of the decision given by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Florida:
(emphasis mine)

The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” …

In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED.

read entire ruling here.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas on the repeal of Obamacare and saving the incandescent light bulb...

"we have to win the election first"