Conscience Rights and the Obama Administration

Conscience Rights and the Obama Administration July 16, 2013

The USCCB released a new video today discussing the war on the right of conscience in America.

I think it’s a powerful video that expresses the issues far better than anything I could say. All Americans should be upset about what the Obama administration is doing to our First Amendment liberties.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

30 responses to “Conscience Rights and the Obama Administration”

  1. I’m beyond upset. Between this and a few other things that have happened these last couple of years, i’ve lost my sense of patriotism. This isn’t my country any more.

  2. I totally agree with you, I am fearful of the direction my country is headed.

    If you are going to be a nurse you must be willing to treat ALL your patients, even those who have made choices you don’t agree with. If she were a Jehovah’s Witness would she refuse to treat a patient getting a blood transfusion?

    How, exactly, does providing comprehensive medical coverage to your employees offend your own conscience? If you don’t want to use contraceptives, you don’t have to use them! What gives you the right to make that decision for anyone else? What about your employees who are not Catholic? Do we really want to live in a totalitarian state where your employer gets to decide what health care you are allowed to receive? Where the Government tells you what you can and can’t do to your own body? It’s un-American. As an American, I demand my freedom!

  3. The saddest sight in all the world is a man trying to be funny when God did not make him so. Cary, I suggest you leave that sort of thing to Jay Leno and Tina Fey and all that sort of people, who know how to do it. As for the rest, if you imagine for one second that we haven’t heard it all, every last stupid self-righteous obfuscating mendacious and self-regarding word of it, an infinite amount of times, you are living on the moon. Yours is ignorant boilerplate that nobody should bother answering because we have answered it so many times before.

  4. I just had a conversation about this. I don’t think the state should force organizations to provide coverage against their beliefs but the employee should be allowed to add it if they so choose to and they should have the means to get what they properly need.

  5. If you don’t like your employer’s compensation, take another job. But you are forcing employers to violate their religious conscience. Freedom works both ways, not just for you.

  6. ” If liberals had their way, every mother earning less than poverty level would be sterilized.”

    Really. I’ve never heard any liberal suggest anything of the sort. It actually sounds very fiscally conservative to me. Surely, there are many more fiscal conservatives who don’t oppose sterilization that would advocate what you are suggesting that liberals would do. Liberals would give them welfare, not sterilize them. You have a very skewed attitude toward liberals.

  7. There isn’t going to be any legislation addressing any of their complaints. The nurse has to either perform the duties of her job or get a new job description (even if it means finding another employer who will respect her conscience). The nun needs to apply for an accommodation under the amendments to the mandate. And the owners of Hercules Industries have to stop trying to make their employees adhere to the religious requirements of them, the owners. It is the owners who are prohibited from using contraceptives not the employees. We can’t have Catholics imposing their scrupulosity on others.

  8. Putting artificial chemicals into your body to override how a healthy female body was designed to work does not strike me as “medical care” or “health care.”

    This reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ statement, “For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. [But] for magic and applied science alike, the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men; the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as [terrible and] impious . . .”

  9. This seems like it’s plainly a situation of competing rights. I do not think a caregiver’s right to act in accord with their religious beliefs outstrips an individual’s right to receive health care. I can see why it would be regarded as in dispute rather than clear cut though.

  10. “Yours is ignorant boilerplate that nobody should bother answering because we have answered it so many times before.”

    Actually, it seems like boilerplate because so many people feel the exact same way as Cary and have stated as such. They are common sense responses to what comes down to nothing more than whining. The courts haven’t come down to definitive rulings as to whether plaintiff’s First Amendment rights are being violated. If they are then the plaintiffs won’t be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception. I their First Amendment rights are not being violated, per the courts’ determinations, then they should stop whining and give their employees the coverage.

  11. What wonderful confidence in the wisdom and uprightness of the courts. You don’t believe in God, but you believe in judges. What delicious confidence in the excellence and unstained honour of human nature.

  12. “You don’t believe in God, but you believe in judges.”

    I don’t believe in your concept of God. Of course I believe in judges. Why wouldn’t I? They are the most qualified to decide if someone’s First Amendment rights are being violated. People who think their rights are being violated are the least qualified because they are biased.

  13. “And, of course, some of the contraceptives induce an abortion, which is objectionable on it’s own, and suggests the president’s underlying agenda is tax-payer funded abortions.”

    I’m tired of people saying that some contraceptives induce abortions. Abortions of what? A week old fertilized egg? So what?

  14. Scrupulosity is a psychological disorder characterized by pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. It is personally distressing, objectively dysfunctional, and often accompanied by significant impairment in social functioning.

    That sounds like some people I know, but not the President.

  15. “Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires
    all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.”

    That is nonsense. We are talking about microscopic cells that have no consciousness, no personality, nothing.

  16. The President has no tolerance for Catholics trying to impose their scruples on others. And I don’t think Hillary does either. So save your complaints for 2024. However, by then, I don’t think anyone will be willing to put up with it. It’s called “progress”. You can’t stop it.

  17. Oh, so you’re scruples don’t allow you to admit to the humanity of people who have no consciousness or personality.

    No wonder you believe in euthanasia!

  18. Yes. That is a safe assumption. To be truly human, you need consciousness and personality. To be a vegetable, you don’t. Please don’t keep me alive if I ever become a vegetable. A fertilized egg loses nothing if it is terminated before it becomes conscious or develops a personality. I realize that the Church and many professionals would disagree, but I am sticking to my opinion about that.

  19. If you would just substitute the word “opinions” for “scruples” when talking about me, your comments would make more sense. I don’t have scruples. Ok. There. I said it.

  20. “Whether the law should give the fetus human rights is a matter of philosophy”

    Well said. And Catholicism offers just one of many different philosophies. It may be presented as the one true philosophy that everyone should adopt, but that doesn’t make it so.