True Dat

“If tone-deafness were impeachable, Holder would be gone just for going to court against the *Little Sisters of the Poor.* You could not make up worse optics than this. Unless there was a group called “Orphans Who Help Lost Kittens and Puppies.” – Ed Ahlsen-Girard

It’s not on them (or us) to have to prove they have a right not to be forced to buy somebody’s condom and pay for somebody’s abortion.  It’s on the state to demonstrate that they have some duty to do so.  Our rights come from God, not the generosity of Barack Obama.  The quiet, implacable malice this Administration has for the Catholic Church is its most insidious quality.  God defend the Little Sisters of the Poor as he casts down the mighty in their arrogance and lifts up the lowly.  Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for them and for your children here in the US.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    Here’s power to the Little Sisters. But for the life of me I cannot understand why the US Bishops endorse nationalized healthcare. You put your faith in and give power to a secularized government, then you have to be at the whims and dictates of that power. This should be an obvious lesson for limited government to the Bishops, but yet they don’t seem to learn it. Now even if the Sisters win, i will be forced since I get my healthcare insurance from a secular employer to contribute to things that go against my conscience.

    • Stu

      In other words, you can’t have solidarity without subsidiarity and vice versa.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        I’m sorry I don’t understand. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

        • Stu

          I agree with you.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            LOL, thanks.

      • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

        I just want people to admit the vice-versa. So many “conservatives” will not.

        • http://brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

          Both solidarity and subsidiarity are ordered toward the common good. They do indeed rely on each other.

          • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

            Yup. And that requires a judgment of the common good, a judgment that the right doesn’t want to make economically and the left doesn’t want to make politically.

            • http://brianniemeier.com/ Brian Niemeier

              And the reason they don’t is that both sides falsely absolutize freedom. The only difference is that the right tends to be more fiscally libertine but slower to disavow moral goods. Though yesterday’s liberal is today’s conservative.

    • LSUStatman

      I think it is pretty clear why the bishops supported universal healthcare. Catholic teaching clearly states that access to healthcare is a human right, and the simplest way to accomplish that is through a single-payer system. Now, it may not be the most effective (in terms of quality of care) nor the most efficient (where a true free market tends to eliminate more waste than any other system), but it has definitive advantages over Obamacare (which I think is designed to fail, so that the population will cry for single-payer.)

      Additionally, the whole argument over what benefits would be provided would not cast individuals in to debates over cooperation with evil. Having the government provide something, like contraception or abortifacients, does not mean the taxpayer is engaging in “material cooperation with evil”. So this would provide a certain immunity for the general public.

      Now, I disagree with the bishops for two reasons:
      1. I think the experience of nations with single-payer shows a decrease in the quality of care because the removing the patient from the payment action eliminates the ability of the patient to hold the insurance provider accountable.
      2. Also the single-payer nations have essentially surrendered in the great moral questions of our time. Abortion is settled law in Western Europe, though the restrictions are in general greater than those in the US at this time.
      Still, either single-payer or a true free market would be better than what we have, and the bishops are well within Catholic Social Teaching by advocating single-payer.

      Peace.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Yes, I see why they want universal healthcare. I want universal healthcare as well, but not at the expense of government run or government managed which is what Obamacare really does. If the bishops think they can thread the needle and have their cake and eat it too, they are sadly mistaken. The anti Christian attitudes will only be increased in the coming years.

    • Jonna

      Contraceptive coverage has been mandatory for insurance plans that provide preventive care since 2000, with no fuss from the USCCB. Private carriers like the Christian Brothers, which insures the Sisters, were exempt since then. Check your pre-ACA medical plan to see if contraceptives were already covered, then drop your insurance if you want to be consistent. Basically, the Sisters were already exempt and this is political theater.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Political theater? It’s going to the Supreme Court and if they win then all that other mandatory crap you cite will be open for debate. This will be a big deal if they win. And contraception is not the only issue here. Abortifacients and sterilization are perhaps even more important issues.

        • HornOrSilk

          It really is political theater, and Jonna is correct on this. Before Obama, the USCCB and Republicans had no religious liberty complaints about people having insurance which also funded contraceptives. When it is allowed, as even the USCCB has made it clear, then it is not a religious liberty concern. Now, would it be better not to have this requirement? Yes. But, that is an issue outside of religious liberty complaints. That’s my problem with this — it’s tied to the wrong problem, causing political theater and, in the end, hurting people who need insurance (while the rich who already have such insurance are not told to cancel it… which if it is mandatory for the faith not to have such insurance, it would be required; so again, it is not religious liberty!).

          The cry for “religious liberty” by the right is, also, hypocritical, when one looks to the 90s court cases and what the right promoted (look to the discrimination against Native American religious interests, EVEN TODAY, which are entirely ignored). This is a fine way to destroy any real sense of religious liberty concerns by a mock religious liberty case. That’s my problem with the whole fiasco. If the USCCB and the Church said no one can morally have such insurance, and all Catholics were required to have no insurance if that is all they could get, then religious liberty could be invoked. Again this is not the case. QED.

          Some people just hate Obama and universal health care and are trying to find any excuse to reject it. There are many good reasons to reject Obamacare, such as, it is insurance based, helping those who peddle the medical industry. Yet, of course, that was all that could be passed: any reduction of costs mandated by Obamacare got all kinds of cries of pain by the right, already, even when it was light and less than should be. Again, it is a political circus. If people would be consistent and dump their own insurance if their company (not just their policy) funds contraceptives, I would take them more serious. They won’t. Again, QED. It’s all a sham.

          • Jonna

            Well said and unfortunately true.

            • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

              See my reply above to HornorSilk above.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Let’s assume that they had no complaints in the past. I find that suspect, but I’m not going to research it. So assume it. That in no way over rules a new set of Bishops or a change of policy now. It is an issue now and it’s going to the Supreme Court which I believe will substatiate the Nuns. It’s not political theater. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me that the Nuns win 9-0 in SCOTUS. Expect it to go down, which will invigorate a fight over any other restrictions to religious liberty.

            • HornOrSilk

              Again, religious liberty is not about “preference” but about “what is required.” Catholic moral theology already accepts remote material cooperation with evil. Even the USCCB has said that this kind of cooperation is permissible (with regards to universities). Again, it is not an issue of religious liberty. It is politics and preference. Nonetheless, again, tell me, any Catholic with such insurance being told they MUST abandon it? NO. Again, proof it is not religious liberty. There has been no demand on Catholics with such policies to abandon them, thus, it makes it clear it is not forbidden. If it is not forbidden, it is not religious liberty.

              • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                When you start with “again” that means you’re repeating yourself. I’m not going to repeat myself. We disagree and when SCOTUS sides with the Nuns you can come back and acknowledge you were wrong. Several lower courts have already sided in favor of religious liberty on this issue.

                • HornOrSilk

                  How is it religious liberty when the Catholic faith doesn’t forbid such insurance? I say “again” because you have not answered. You ignore the point. Religious liberty is not at stake when what is allowed by our faith (even if not preferable) is what is involved with the case. That’s the point. It can’t be religious liberty when there is no force against our religious faith going on.

                  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

                    If it’s not at stake then how come it’s gone through the courts favorably and will go to SCOTUS? I disagree with you that it’s not an issue. I ignore the point because the courts have already decided it’s an issue. SCOTUS will rule on this and the odds appear to be favorable for the Nuns. So on its face you are wrong.

  • Roki

    It’s not on them (or us) to have to prove they have a right not to be
    forced to buy somebody’s condom and pay for somebody’s abortion. It’s
    on the state to demonstrate that they have some duty to do so.

    Exactly. The administration bears the burden of proof in this case, to prove that its laws (or regulations) are just, and justly implemented. But it is acting as if the burden of proof lies with all the organizations on whom it is imposing these new requirements.

    I am speaking philosophically here. Are any lawyers familiar enough with the case to say what the legal requirements are? Where does U.S. law place the burden of proof?

    • Finchster

      It comes under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The burden is on the government to prove 1) the HHS mandate is in “furtherance of a compelling government interest” and 2) the mandate is “the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.” A “compelling government interest” is one that “relates directly with core constitutional issues.”

      You would think this would be a slam-dunk for the Sisters, but they had to go to the US Supreme Court to even get a temporary injunction.

  • Anonymous Turd

    And the method for their dollars going from premium X to the pharmacy is …

    • Stu

      Same way they buy shoes, food, vitamins, candy, and various other things that aren’t “healthcare”, which is out of pocket.

      Next thing these people are going to want insurance to cover someone tying their shoes for them.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X