WH to Dolan: We’re not listening but you should!

Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York, who is president of the USCCB, brings an update on the HHS Mandate battle and he is being realistic and, it seems to me, trying to tell us all to gird our loins.

All links and emphases are mine:

The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously. Unfortunately, this seems to be going nowhere: the White House Press Secretary, for instance, informed the nation that the mandates are a fait accompli (and, embarrassingly for him, commented that we bishops have always opposed Health Care anyway, a charge that is simply scurrilous and insulting). The White House already notified Congress that the dreaded mandates are now published in the Federal Registry “without change.” The Secretary of HHS is widely quoted as saying, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets,” which doesn’t bode well for a truly acceptable “accommodation.” And a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff ended with the President’s people informing us that the broader concerns of religious freedom — that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent hardly-surprising but terribly unfortunate editorial in America.

The White House seems to think we bishops are hopelessly out of touch with our people, and with those whom the White House now has nominated as official Catholic teachers.

So, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere with the executive branch.

Congress offers more hope, with thoughtful elected officials proposing promising legislation to protect what should be so obvious: religious freedom. As is clear from the current debate in the senate, our opponents are marketing this as a “woman’s health issue.” Of course, it cannot be reduced to that. It’s about religious freedom. (By the way, the Church hardly needs to be lectured about health care for women. Thanks mostly to our Sisters, the Church is the largest private provider of health care for women and their babies in the country. Here in New York State, Fidelis, the Medicare/Medicaid insurance provider, owned by the Church, consistently receives top ratings for its quality of service to women and children.)

And the courts offer the most light. In the recent Hosanna-Tabor ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically defended the right of a Church to define its own ministry and services, a dramatic rebuff to the administration, but one apparently unheeded by the White House. Thus, our bishops’ conference and many individual religious entities are working with some top-notch law firms who have told us they feel so strongly about this that they will represent us pro-bono.

So, we have to be realistic and prepare for tough times. Some, like America magazine, want us to cave-in and stop fighting, saying this is simply a policy issue; some want us to close everything down rather than comply (In an excellent article, Cardinal Francis George wrote that the administration apparently wants us to “give up for Lent” our schools, hospitals, and charitable ministries); some want us to engage in civil disobedience and be fined; some worry that we’ll have to face a decision between two ethically repugnant choices: subsidizing immoral services or no longer offering insurance coverage, a road none of us wants to travel.

Read it all. Someone asked me recently what I thought of the editorial in America magazine and I said I was sad about it, because there are so many Jesuits I admire greatly, but on this issue, they’re just wrong. I think they’re working through a very destructive conceit about their own intellectualism, and its leading them to a worldly and cynical alliance that will eventually — because this is about a government power-grab, not contraception, and they know it — end up marginalizing believers or creating a schismatic state church. I was disappointed that these exceedingly smart men were unable to see a simple truth, because it was “too” simple. I think sometimes this is the danger for very smart, well-educated folks. They miss the fact that sometimes, the truth is not complicated, at all.

The USCCB, by the way, is PhD heavy — our bishops are not bumpkins. But I suppose the bishops intellectual take on this issue, informed only by history, political science, philosophy and 2,000 years of reasoning is the wrong kind of smarts, or something. Not enlightened enough. The White House is (sadly, typically) as arrogant and disrespectful as ever.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey does some numbers crunching regarding the impact of closing Catholic Hospitals:

Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

The poor and working class families that get assistance from Catholic benefactors would end up having to pay more for their care than they do under the current system. Rural patients would have to travel farther for medical care, and services like social work and breast-cancer screenings would fall to the less-efficient government-run institutions. That would not only impact the poor and working class patients, but would create much longer wait times for everyone else in the system. Finally, over a half-million people employed by Catholic hospitals now would lose their jobs almost overnight, which would have a big impact on the economy as well as on health care.

And of course, we’re not just talking about hospitals.

Then again, if Catholic hospitals close, perhaps the government plans to acquire them, creating itself as the “be-all-and-end-all” — a false Christ, gathering all things to itself.

UPDATE II: Get Religion is watching the press get fed and digest the WH talking points

UPDATE III:
At Egregious Twaddle:

Yesterday’s New York Times, for example, brought this completely unsurprising editorial attempt to wedge the attack on Catholic conscience even deeper into the health care battlefield. “Women’s Health Care at Risk,” reads the headline over the earning that “a wave of mergers between Catholic and secular hospitals is threatening to deprive women of access to important reproductive services.” So now we’re not just making women sick by refusing to pay for free contraceptives for our employees; we’re withholding critical care. That these “important reproductive services”–”Catholic hospitals have refused to terminate pregnancies, provide contraceptive services, offer a standard treatment for ectopic pregnancies, or allow sterilization after caesarean sections,” all of which violate Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life–are in actual fact nonreproductive services is something nobody seems to be willing to discuss. (Is it just me?)

Read it all. Nope, it’s not just you, Joanne. The new narrative is that the church — which has never argued a ban on contraception — is trying to keep women from getting at it. It’s egregious, it’s false, and the promulgation of the lie is intensely cynical. But the press will promoted it, and people will buy it.

Related:
We Don’t Need No Stinking Bishops

Message received: Battle is its

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Mary

    It is absolutely inconceivable that we are even having this discussion in the United States. I am certain that the Bishops will stand firm. They have to. It speaks to everything that we believe as Catholics. The big question is what will come next after they stand firm?

  • ahem

    Nationwide Rally in Support of the Catholic Church March 23 Noon

    “The Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom is being held Friday, March 23 at noon, local time, outside federal buildings, Congressional offices and historic sites across the country. The theme for the Rally is “Stand Up for Religious Freedom—Stop the HHS Mandate!””

    http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/locations/

  • ahem

    Also,
    Senate Dems Vote 51-48 to Destroy the First Amendment

    Official Roll Call:
    http://tinyurl.com/88aomqx

  • Romulus

    I was disappointed that these exceedingly smart men were unable to see a simple truth, because it was “too” simple.

    Liz, that’s charitable of you. My own take is that a lot of these smart men are playing for the other team.

    The hard but necessary truth about human freedom is that we not only may/i> choose either God’s will or our own, but that we all must. The Cross is where man — first Jesus, subsequently the rest of us — conform our will to the Father’s: another hard but necessary truth.

  • michigancatholic

    Wow, lots of important stuff in this statement by Cardinal Dolan.
    *the administration says that the bishops should listen to an editorial in a magazine to get their stance, in effect naming their own choice of Catholic “teachers.” Tilt. Total ignorance on the part of the administration. That’s not how it works, has ever worked or will ever work.
    *update on relations with White House which are apparently at a standstill, and hopes for Congress & courts.
    *admonition to “be realistic and prepare for tough times.” Sounds rather like Cardinal George here.
    BTW, this is not the whole statement but merely an excerpt of it. The whole thing is here: http://blog.archny.org/?p=2291
    And he’s said a lot more in the entire statement and some of it is quite concrete and informative. Don’t miss it.

  • grouper

    there is a reason for the word “jesuitical”

  • Ron19

    As for the America article, does anybody remember:

    “Peace in our time.”

    “Why can’t we all just get along?”

    How about we just go along to get along, folks.

  • Romulus

    It is absolutely inconceivable that we are even having this discussion in the United States.

    It was bound to happen. As Americans we all cherish the national myth that we’re special, but we’re not exempt from original sin or from history. It’s quite a challenge to name a country where Catholics have never been officially persecuted for their faith. It’s time we stopped pretending that the false religion of American Exceptionalism will protect us.

  • michigancatholic

    Ron19,
    But “go along to get along” isn’t the same thing as “can’t we all get along.” Very far from it. Very, very different statements.

  • John

    Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the Left painting this as a “war against women”? Consider how many otherwise-decent Americans won’t know it’s a false charge — they are going to aim their anger (if not more) right at us thinking it the righteous and patriotic thing to do.

    I’m not making the comment because I fear civil unrest (though I do), I make it because I am utterly appalled that Democrats would so blithely urge it on. Their dishonesty is intentional and irresponsible in the extreme.

  • Bender

    Congress offers more hope
    ________________

    Sigh. Being knowledgeable of history, the good Cardinal should know that the Church does NOT look to Caesar for hope.

    Caesar is Caesar and he is going to do what Caesar does. King Henry Obama will not be our salvation here. Neither will Pope Sebelius. Even were Boehner to have emergency surgery to implant a spine, we cannot rely upon Congress to save us. And why we should expect reasonableness and mercy from a branch that has raised the slaughter of 55 million innocents to a fundamental right is beyond me.

    If the bishops really do have such a public policy mindset on this, we are in real trouble.

    Sigh. Hey Cardinal O’Connor — I think you please need to give Cardinal Dolan a call.

  • doc

    Yes, but will the bishops continue to refuse to permit the use of the word Democrat in all their communication in this assault on the Church, which, incidentally, is the handiwork of one party and one party alone?

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    This is very sad. Congress will not save us. The Democratic led Senate just rejected taking this up. Our only hope is in the courts or making Obama pay in November. I cannot imagine how any Catholic can vote Democrat. It’s amazed me how a sizable number of Jews continuously vote Democrat, despite their anti-Israeli bias. We are reaching a point with tha similar split for Catholics. How can Catholics continue to support Democrats, and especially this administration, when they are repeatedly anti religion? I guess people buy cheap rhetorical B.S. I can’t believe how dejected I am over this issue.

  • Gail Finke

    Manny: Like you, I find myself dejected over this — so many attacks at once! And so long-planned. During the last election, it was so obvious that “Catholics” who toed the line got positions of importance in the party I used to belong to. But they didn’t get them out of nowhere, it had to have been happening for a long time. The Notre Dame thing was a warning bell, but most people who paid attention at all were caught up in the specifics. The bigger picture was: These Catholics GOOD, the other ones BAD. And now everything is happening faster and faster and faster. IMHO, this is an attempt to divide the Church (so there is no one, big body that claims to teach anything the government doesn’t), destroy religious liberty (so the government has ALL the power) and enshrine a kind of libertinist, death-loving way of thinking and living politically because it is, in fact, under threat practically. Keep fighting. There have been many, many worse times for the Church. But it is so hard to see it happening.

  • Gail Finke

    Elizabeth I think you are right about the Jesuits. They are too intellectual for their own good, and I mean that literally. There is a grave moral peril in being smart. I hope the Society can make it through this, but who knows? I used to get “America” and I looked forward to every issue. And that was when Fr. Reese was editor! But as soon as he was out, they published an article titled “Little Gray Cells” (I still remember the title!), the gist of which was — no matter what you say to us, our little gray cells keep churning, WE ARE THE SMARTEST OF ALL, and we will do whatever the heck we want to do. I thought it was appalling, and the magazine was never the same. That kind of “we know all” arrogance came to characterize more and more of it. Or maybe I just never noticed before that…

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    @Gail
    I agree with you. I don’t know if they started out to divide Catholics, but given a push to force religion to accept the values of their sexual revolution world view (and thereby destroy freedom of religion and the first amendment) they may have stumbled onto a strategy of divide and conquer. They will divide Catholics over this and I’m afraid it will work, unless we have a sizable number in November to vote against him and make him pay.

  • JAY

    The bishops were happy with Obamacare when they thought they had a sweetheart backroom deal. Their deal would have left every Catholic business owner with the choice of funding abortions or closing their business. Then Obama doublecrossed the bishops and they are unhappy. Somehow I can’t work up any sympathy for the bishops.

  • Syl

    Regarding Ed Morrissey’s analysis: Perhaps the plan is that when the Catholic hospitals fail, the government will “nationalize” them?

  • ahem

    Hey, the Obama government has nationalized everything else. See a pattern here?

  • Sharon

    I am very concerned by the expected impact of the HHS mandate. I don’t think that Obama was expecting the strong reaction he got from the Church. He’s surrounded by Pelosi, Sebelius and Biden, after all. But…. if the Church refuses to provide insurance for employees, that plays into his desire for a single-payer system. And if Catholics close their hospitals, the government will most certainly be happy to provide abortions in the formerly-Catholic facilities. Heaven help any employees of the Catholic hospitals, because they could end up working for an employer who has no respect for their beliefs, on bc, abortion or euthanasia. I don’t see how that is a “win” for the Church.

    Yes, the government would be glad to take over all charitable institutions. Now of course no one could possibly believe that the government is actually capable of running these places, but it wouldn’t stop the government from trying, because that would take ALL influence away from the Church and would make everyone dependent on the government’s “generosity.” I can’t imagine – Medicare was already about to bankrupt the country pre-Obamacare. Social Security is nearly insolvent due to mishandling of funds by the government. They can’t even successfully manage the post office! But they won’t let those minor details stop them from taking over all of health care, from insurance to hospitals. I just can’t decide what is driving the administration – are they so arrogant they think they can do better than the Catholic system, or are they so incompetent that they have no understanding of what they are getting themselves into?

  • Mark

    Anchoress, do you ever sleep :-)

    Unbelievable amount of depth and substance here, all nicely footnoted with links to other stories.

    You’re amazing … and we’re grateful!!

    I feel like the readers of this blog are like hapless graduate students struggling to keep up with the reading assignments from “Professor Anchoress” :-)

    Many, many thanks for the great work!

  • Mark

    @ ahem — thanks for your post from about 8 hours ago regarding:
    “Nationwide Rally in Support of the Catholic Church March 23 Noon, Local Time”

    I have bookmarked it and will share it tomorrow — and share it again a week later — with all my Catholic friends in my various Parish groups and at Dunwoodie where I’m taking classes and via other networks … and highlight the info on the event in my home city (NYC).

    For those that didn’t catch the post by “ahem” please see below the website. The list of backers is impressive. Share with your friends. Talk it up in your parish. Let your pastor, parochial vicars, DREs, etc. know about this and any and all members of your parish societies, etc. Write a letter to the diocesan newspaper providing the details. Take note of the event in your city, and get in touch with the Rally Captain for that event and coordinate with them. “Ora et labora” — Pray AND Mobilize!

    “Stand Up for Religious Freedom—Stop the HHS Mandate!””
    http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/locations/

  • Bro AJK

    Dear Ahem, et a.,

    I’ve read Mindszenty’s memoirs. I do.

  • Mack Hall

    Okay, but did everyone here vote in the last presidential election? State election? Local election? School board election?

  • John

    Something I just saw on today’s WSJ Opinion page: in a story about Southern Baptists electing a new head, it mentions the 1845 break that create the denomination — triggered when northern congregations “refused to appoint slaveholders to missionary posts.”

    Imagine that: a church that splits itself in two over the question of how to confront a grievous flaw inherent in the prevailing mores (and laws) of the nation. Hindsight leaves no room (none, zero, nada) to doubt the superiority of the bold, principled approach.

    How will the Jesuits look with that sort of hindsight? How do “liberation theology” dictatorships look at the remove of mere decades? If the U.S. foolishly abolishes individual liberty and destroys the republic, will history books lament the act and name the collaborators?

  • kenneth

    The narrative that the Church wants to outlaw most contraception for all women is not a lie. It is well established by centuries of action by the Church, its written positions on such matters and by the present day actions of a very large swath of its core members and their non-Catholic Christian allies.
    The “personhood” amendment drives in Colorado and Missisippi would absolutely ban the pill in all its forms for all people. Bishops have not lent their official support to those initiatives, but held back purely for tactical reasons, not because they disagree with the language. In statements, they call the amendment a “noble initiative” but say they want to hold out to get a national one, not state by state. They have no underlying problem with the concept of outlawing contraception. In fact, their own theology demands nothing less, insofar as hormonal contraception is capable of blocking implantation post-fertilization.
    Of course they mean to outlaw contraception. They may well be conceding that they don’t have the political means to mount a real offensive for such a thing right now, but their intentions are crystal clear in that regard. The bishops may have a religious freedom argument, which will be sorted out by the courts, but they are by no means seeking a “live and let live” accommodation with contraceptive access.

  • Patrick

    16 years of Catholic education including 8 with the Jesuits. This is an opportunity for the Church to renounce the use of the State to force support for programs that may have stated goals that appear to match Christian values. However, as history has shown, and the HHS move has highlighted, allowing the State to use its power to force these goals is ultimately a losing game for the individual. Now is a chance for the Church to stand up against the use of government power and state that as desirable as many of these goals might be, it is immoral to use State power to accomplish them. These goals should be pursued through voluntary action of the individual – reducing poverty, helping the sick etc. Sure it always seems like a good idea to use State power, but in the end, the current situation is what you will get every time. Of course, given the Church’s recent history, I have every confidence it will squander this opportunity.

  • John

    Kenneth, the Church has already outlawed contraception, just as it has outlawed simony, worshiping false gods, etc. It has outlawed these things within its own jurisdiction, very explicitly and with all the supporting arguments published for the world to see.

    Secular law lay elsewhere. To say the Church would be pleased to see secular law reflect divine law is to observe the unremarkable. But to say the Church is still as active in power politics as it was in centuries past is to ignore some major changes in how the Church’s governs itself. It also ignore how citizens with free will exercise their franchise (what’s left of it).

    And let’s not get started on how the power politics of secular law is actively shrinking the realm of the Church’s already-limited jurisdiction — the realm of private conscience, voluntary association, and free exercise. Are you disqualifying the Church from objecting to that repression because it has a hidden-in-plain-sight agenda?

  • Brian English

    “The “personhood” amendment drives in Colorado and Missisippi would absolutely ban the pill in all its forms for all people.”

    Nonsense. You really have to find a better source for your information on these issues than Planned Parenthood propaganda.

  • Romulus

    Kenneth, you surprise me. You seem to be OK with a “live and let live accommodation” with intrinsic evil.

  • Person of Choler

    “The President invited us to “work out the wrinkles,” and we have been taking him seriously”, says Cardinal Dolan.

    The Church’s problem is that Obama has never intended to take the Church seriously. Catholicism is merely another Enemy Of The State to be marginalized if not obliterated.

    For a very long time the Church has peddled the “Jesus is my social worker” fashion in theology and the resulting alliance with leftist politicians has put it in today’s bind of trying to negotiate with those who work for the destruction of its role in people’s lives.

    It will get worse.

  • Liz

    Sebelius explained the administration’s logic yesterday when addressing the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health about President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal:

    “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”

    So they’re going to reduce/contain costs by doing everything they can to reduce the number of US citizens. Wow.

  • kenneth

    “The “personhood” amendment drives in Colorado and Missisippi would absolutely ban the pill in all its forms for all people.”

    Nonsense. You really have to find a better source for your information on these issues than Planned Parenthood propaganda……………..”

    Actually, I get that information straight from the Q&A website of the personhood amendment supporters themselves, and I’ll be happy to put up a link later this afternoon when I have the time to track it down again.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Liz, they just want enough of us to be able to work and pay enough taxes that they can fund their programs.

    They really don’t have much use for us, otherwise.

    As the old saying goes, “There’s safety in numbers.” They don’t want there to be more of than they can easily control, and they don’t want us getting too strong.

  • Liz

    I think it’s obvious that they’ll be perfectly comfortable making other tough choices about costly life vs. savings in death/non-existence when it comes to the elderly, the seriously injured, and the defective. This contraception/abortion coverage is just the first step.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Oh, yes, they will be completely comfortable—not to say downright cheery—about making choices for the rest of us.

    On they other hand, you can be sure they’ll want the best of life-saving techniques and medicine for themselves.

  • Brian English

    “I’ll be happy to put up a link later this afternoon when I have the time to track it down again.”

    I eagerly await seeing this link where the proponents of the personhood amendments assert that the amendments are intended to outlaw birth control pills.

  • cathyf

    I posted this as a comment on the cardinal’s blog:

    This is not the end assault on conscience, but merely the beginning. From the Obama administration’s point of view, the “problem” with our current health care and health insurance system that must be “reformed” is that we spend all sorts of money on worthless old people, or people who otherwise are too expensive to keep alive. And the researchers are out there spending trillions of dollars developing new drugs and treatments because they know that our current system allows them to get paid for their work so that they can continue doing it. When no treatment exists, people must resign themselves to die, but when treatments do exist, people will demand that the sick get those treatments. The way to solve the problem is to eliminate the new drugs and treatments. So that people then simply (and cheaply) die.

    The Obama administration looks at all of those trillions of dollars being “wasted” on sick people, rather than being used to buy votes or reward political donors, and they want to get at it. One huge institution that is in the way of them getting the money is the Catholic church, which will absolutely refuse to cooperate with euthanasia, and will insist on treating people with exciting new drugs and treatments when they work better than the old ones.

    The contraception/sterilization/abortifacient mandate is designed precisely to force Catholics out of the provision of health care. Because the REAL money is in euthanasia and in all those new treatments, and the Church is standing precisely between the government and the money.

  • Liz

    Cathyf, I had the same thought as you when this all started. This is not about contraception, it’s about institutionalizing their culture of death. They need to get any hospital or health-related organization that values life out of the way.

    We’ve seen the mask slip in their cruel mockery of Terry Schiavo and Trig Palin, so we know which lives they don’t value.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if having the Catholic hospitals shut down in protest was all part of the plan. It’s a win-win scenario: if the hospitals comply with the contraception mandate, they’ve set the precedent of state trumping religious conscience; if the hospitals close in protest, then who will stop them from implementing further life-denying policies like starving the head-injured and denying life-saving treatment to the elderly?

  • Gerry

    Uh, right, Kenny … we believe you … that darn link just disappeared into cyberspace

  • http://cinemacatechism.blogspot.com/ Bender

    The Church’s problem is that Obama has never intended to take the Church seriously. Catholicism is merely another Enemy Of The State to be marginalized if not obliterated
    _____________

    That’s just it. Meanwhile, we have Cardinal Dolan and others, including practically 95 percent of the structure and staff at the USCCB, dedicated to working with government and seeking Church-government partnerships.

    NEWSFLASH: Government does not want to work with you, government wants to destroy you. Government has spent the last 80 years or so usurping the role of the Church in American society, all too often with the Church’s assistance. Having displaced the Church as the primary provider of “charity” (which in its secularity has little to do with caritas), it must now push the Church deeper and deeper into the recesses of society, into the ghettos and behind the walls of the Vatican.

    In its place, Government will be The Church, Government will be our God. And you shall have no other gods before it.

  • doc

    Actually, Bender, it’s the Democrats, not the entire government, and if enough Catholics turn away from the Democrats, they will be forced to drop their assault on the Catholic Church. The Democrats think they can win by making contraception an election issue. As Instapundit says, “the Republicans want to steal your ladyparts!”

    Replacing Harry Reid as the leader of the senate is almost as important as replacing Obama as president.

  • kenneth

    Here are some of the links I had in mind. The sponsors of the amendments try to obsfucate and soft-pedal their position on birth control, but their meaning is crystal clear to anyone with a knowledge of the technology and of their theological reasoning. By defining all hormonal forms of birth control as abortifacients, they absolutely mean to outlaw them through these amendments. Basically all forms of birth control currently available save for condoms, spermicides and NFP would be outlawed, for everyone.

    There is no way a reasonable person can read otherwise from the sponsor’s own words. Nor do they deny it. They know it’s a deal breaker for mainstream voters, so they try to take command of the language of the debate. By simply redefining virtually all birth control as abortion methods, they try to say “see, we’re not opposed to birth control.” They also get into propaganda likening birth control to the steroid abuse of atheletes, displaying an appalling ignorance of chemistry and pharmacology.

    The point is, whatever the merits of your complaints against Obama, you guys are NOT freedom fighters of any sort. The pro-life movement and the Church are no different qualitatively than the authoritarian regime you love to hate. You’re not mad because someone is trying to dictate others consciences. You’re just sore because you’re not the ones presently doing the dictating.

    http://personhoodcolorado.com/birth-control-talking-points

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2011/11/mississippi_personhood_for_embryos_will_it_outlaw_birth_control_.html

    http://parentsagainstms26.com/2011/10/06/yes-on-26s-ever-shifting-stance/

    The Mississippi movement has been quite dodgy about the issue, putting out and retracting several versions of what their amendment would mean vis-a-vis birth control. Their site presently seems to hide all pages and links, perhaps limiting access to subscribers.

  • SKay

    Exzactly Liz and Rhinestone–that is why the Dems in Congress voted down any Republican ammendment to put all of them under Obamacare-before they passed it for the rest of us.

    According to the news the President called th i Georgetown law student to ask her if she is OK-because of some criticism of the $3000.00 birth control cost she
    complained about at the Pelosi set up. She apparently told the reporter that he said that her parents should be proud. Interesting what kind of behavior he considers something to be proud of.

  • kenneth

    “………According to the news the President called th i Georgetown law student to ask her if she is OK-because of some criticism……..”

    An interesting characterization of an incident in which a fat old self-righteous junkie took it on himself to call her a slut and a prostitute for arguing her position….

  • doc

    I seem to racall, kenneth, not so long ago, you claiming to be pro-life. Lying this whole time, eh?

    I wouldn’t worry about the Georgetown version of Kim Kardashian. She’s sure to land a job on some senator’s staff.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I know, SKay, I know.

    The poor lil’ thing! We should just shut-up, and pay for her birth control!

  • kenneth

    I don’t recall ever claiming to be pro-life or staking out my exact position. It’s pointless to even do so in the current culture war climate. The slightest deviation from your party line will get me labeled “pro-abortion” and the slightest deviation from the Planned Parenthood platform will get me labeled “anti-woman” by them. The issue has devolved to complete extremism on both sides. Fortunately, one of the great gifts of middle age and the “Y” chromosome is that I truly don’t give a rat’s posterior whether anyone else approves of my conscience. I form it and live by it the best I can.
    I am, as you might gather, absolutely opposed to legal restriction of contraception of any kind, and I am unimpressed by the pro-life movement’s claim that it is somehow a guardian of free conscience. I have come to view the religious right, or what I would term “political Christendom” as a force which is no better (and no worse) than authoritarian secular government. They both lust for power over others, warlords in their own right who each feel entitled to my obedience and money. For my part, I do what I can to defend what I see as the right to self determination and to maintain some civic engagement in a system largely abandoned to the extremes these days.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I wish the president were as concerned with our soldiers being attacked in Afghanistan.

  • http://www.savkobabe.blogspot.com Gayle Miller

    I hate to sound like a doom-sayer but we really cannot even rely on the Supremes to enforce the First Amendment – thanks to the president’s 2 nominated, unqualified justices!

    It may be that in the end, we will need to replace the doofus in the White House with a competent person who actually understands the “Constituion and honors it and seeks to support it – as Obama has pledged to do and that is a pledge he has ignored.

    What a disastrous president – even worse than we expected!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X