Tyrant King Attempts Head Fake

He’s trying to appear to “accomodate” while giving no real ground to religious liberty–and continuing his war on the Church.

Yuval Levin, a bioethicist at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank, issued a critique of what he believes will be the president’s plan –though the details of the “accommodation” has not yet been released. Levin issued this judgment on the National Review website this morning:

“If I understand the White House announcement correctly, their newly proposed rule would not actually change the moral circumstances at issue in any way.

“It puts religious employers in the position of having to choose between providing their workers with free (to the workers) access to contraceptives and abortifacient drugs or not providing those workers with health insurance at all (and also paying a large fine). The only difference is that the access to those contraceptive and abortifacient drugs would not technically be listed as one of the benefits the employer was paying for directly but would be listed as a benefit the insurer was paying for (with the money the employer paid for the broader insurance policy, of course). But employers who offer insurance don’t pay for individual benefits and products when they are provided anyway, they pay for the policy that gives their workers access to those benefits and products when they want them.
Levin concludes, “What ground is the administration giving in this compromise? And how is it any less a violation of religious liberty?”

Don’t be a sucker. No compromise. This assault on religious liberty must be utterly defeated and salt sowed in its smoldering ashes. This man is an enemy of the Church and is acting with malice.

  • http://decentfilms.com/ SDG

    Worse than before: http://t.co/WbguqdzB

  • http://profiles.google.com/JohnMcG JohnMcG

    I’m not convinced this is so awful, and addresses the concern that I think we were on the strongest ground in making — that religious organizations should not have to provide their employees with contraception. I am satisfied that an organization can comply with this law and not do so.

    That’s not to say all our cultural work is done. Just that I think we got what we could from this particular skirmish.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      What?! We didn’t get anything except a serpentine semantic twist which changes nothing!

      Contraception and abortion will still be covered, the premiums will still be the same. It’s just that now, we’ll say that, for those employers who find contraception and abortion unacceptable, that the *insurers* are covering them, rather than the *employers*.

      Yeah, right. Game on, baby.

    • Alfredo Escalona

      It’s worse than before. Apart from the semantic torture of the “accomodation” itself, this virtually guarantees that, since the policy’s fine print would not say that it covered abortifacients, the insurance company would be forced to mail out to each covered employee a card that touted the “free contraceptive coverage” that they forgot to specify in the policy. Whoopee!!! Just drop in at the local Planned Parenthood clinic, show them our card, and we’ll pay for everything! Agh, there’s one born every minute…

  • Tim

    This must be “the adult in the room” Obama. “I tried to accommodate them, to reason with them, but those darn hateful bishops don’t listen to reason.”

    Now he’s got his excuse when this comes up during the election.

    • Kim

      yes and being the ‘adult in the room’ he will seek and maybe succeed in dividing us Catholics further and away from our Bishops. They will be blamed for being ‘uncompromising’ and unreasonable’. This was the ‘hope and change’ president who campaigned on uniting this country and has divided it more than ever. This is evil. I refuse to bow to the Leviathan.

      • Joseph

        Yeah, that was the plan all along though. Let’s hope that our bishops (the ones that are authentically outraged, that is) could smell it from a mile away like the rest of us could and that they’d already devised a contingency plan around it.

  • Vincent

    The first instant we are we required to provide health insurance plans that provide contraceptives. The revised one requires us to provide health insurances plans that provide contraceptives.

    The evil administration is playing its best game of dividing the Catholics with lefties like St. Keehan standing by cheering for its wisdom.

    • brian

      Thanks Vincent. Your first two sentences answers the question I just posted later in this thread.

      -Brian

    • ds

      dividing the Catholics with lefties like St. Keehan standing by
      with lefties like St. Keehan
      St. Keehan

      Wow, you hold her in pretty high regard.

  • Confederate Papist

    Nothing’s change except the wording.

    Resist.the.Tyrant!

  • brian

    For those knowledgeable in such matters, how is this latest twist battled / defeated?

  • Chris

    As I mentioned on the other thread, this is a divide-and-conquer strategy.

  • victor

    Not be a cynic or anything, but I think any “compromise” by the White house prior to November 8 should be taken as electioneering. Even an exemption for the Catholic Church would be missing the point, as the bad law would still be standing, in principle. I think this is one of those things we just have to say “No,” to, wholecloth, in no uncertain terms: it’s a religious liberty issue, not a Catholic Church or healthcare issue, pure and simple. We don’t “compromise” with the State so that they can grant our religious libery back to us. We have our freedom because it’s ours, not theirs, to begin with.

    • victor

      November 6, rather. Forgot that the election falls on a Tuesday this year.

      • Joseph

        So, what do we do? I suggest the following. We convince all straight-ticket Catholic Democrats not to vote at all. Then we convince all straight-ticket Catholic Republicans not to vote at all. That way, we preserve the consciences of all Catholic voters. Then, we all get together to watch the election like a Super Bowl party. Since none of us got involved, it will feel more like chance. At the end of the party, since whoever will win will surely mandate the death of millions either through abortion and ESCR or through war (or both, who knows?), we can all jump on a boat to New Zealand. From what I understand, they are looking for skilled immigrants there.

        Sound like a plan?

        (Disclaimer: I’m joking… it’s a joke… I’m laughing at my own joke… haha… that makes me a dork)

        • Confederate Papist

          I’m not laughing…..

          I’m looking at NZ real estate….

  • Jack

    New lipstick – same pig.

  • Alfredo Escalona

    What does he think we are, blithering idiots? Morons?

    Yes, Mr Smith, we are raising your insurance premiums this year, but NOOOOOOO,
    the contraceptives, and abortifacient drugs we’ll give your employees are not part of that
    rise in premiums….THEY ARE FREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! WHOOOPEEEEE

    On top of first trying to force us to pay for it, His Royal Highness compounds the problem
    by insulting our intelligence to our faces. A seven year old would see through this.
    But the Mainstream Media? Naahhh…it’s an accomodation! lololol

    FIRE THE BUM IN NOVEMBER!!

  • http://raisinglittlesaints.blogspot.com Erika

    This is still an attack to Religious Liberty which is the root of it all…nothing to see…move on! EWTN (who has the lawsuit against them) isn’t buying it. Gloves are NOT off! Bishops aren’t backing down. Keep praying! And remind everyone this will include ALL insurance, no religous alternatives, nothing changes. http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/referral-is-not-answer-rescinding.html

  • Confederate Papist

    Keep in mind, the *whole* legislation is illegal.

  • Chad Myers

    The Obama Administration didn’t say “we don’t have the right to force the church to do this.” They just said “we’ll just force the insurance companies to do it instead.”

    • Joseph

      Yeah, we know… which means “we have the right to force the Church to do this”. It’s just now you have to follow a stream of logic.

  • Jake

    It seems to me that this is what the “accommodation” really says:

    All employers must provide health insurance that covers free of charge contraception and sterilization procedures, period.

    The religious exemption has been completely thrown out. Instead the insurance companies have to provide these “services” free to everyone and insurance companies are not affiliated to any religion. Employers no longer have a say in the issue because no matter what insurance provider they choose there will be free contraception and sterilization.

    This new “accommodation” seems to be worse than before. Now everyone has to provide this filth regardless of any moral objection.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Question: How would this affect Catholic health insurance plans like FidelisCare?

      http://www.fideliscare.org/aboutus/index.aspx

      • Jake

        I don’t think the religious exemption would apply since their main goal isn’t to teach the faith. My guess is that they would have to provide coverage free of charge. :(

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    “This man is an enemy of the Church and is acting with malice.”

    What makes you think any of this was motivated by malice?

    And I’m not being cantankerous. I just honestly don’t see it. If it is there, please share.

    • Mark Shea

      Because it was a completely unnecessary assault on the Church. Biden and other Catholics in his circle warned him against it. But Sibellius, who has made clear that she sees herself at “war” (her word) for abortion and contraception, urged him to pursue the war, and he agreed. The buck stops with him. He sees himself as bringing civilization to the Church. He has all the arrogance of his class and it never occurred to him that the primitives he sees himself as pacifying and civilizing would put up a serious struggle. Now he’s engaged in the next phase of his war.

      • Mark S (not for Shea)

        Thanks for the reply, Mr. Shea. I appreciate your thoughts.

        I think you’re right that Sibelius was the real villain here. Still, I don’t think that makes Obama malicious so much as lazy and complicit. I don’t think he has any particular animosity toward the Church. But I’m not so sure the same is true of Sibelius.

        • Mark Shea

          No. Obama is the real villain here. To quote a famous Messiah, she would have no power had it not been given her from above.

  • Margaret

    We buy insurance coverage for our employees, but “don’t pay” (wink) for contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization services. The insurance company turns around and “gives” these services to our employees “for free.” (wink wink nudge nudge.)

    Yeah.

    Frankly, I’m insulted– no effort was put into even making this superficially LOOK like a meaningful change.

  • SukieTawdry

    Shame on anyone who’s buying this. The government has no authority to mandate anything to any religious organization. Religion is guaranteed “free exercise.” Period. And for the Bishops and others who were shocked, shocked at the President’s “betrayal,” I have three words: bed, dog, fleas.

    • Mark Shea

      Have any bishops said anything of the sort? They saw this coming for months and have been planning for it. But a lot of reactionaries seem more interested in landing punches on bishops from the rear than in helping them fight. The brilliance of the reactionary Catholic itch to bayonet our own troops. Good thinking!

  • Dr. Eric

    Has anyone noticed that during this whole debacle that there were 2 states that passed “gay marriage”? Is this a feint to get the bishops to look the other way so that Obama can push his agendas elsewhere?

  • http://ktcatspost.blogspot.com/ K T Cat

    They hate us. Anyone who doesn’t see that is blind. They know exactly what they’re doing. The Catholic Church represents a competing religion to the Obama progressives.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X