2 Bumps

U.S. Bishops Vow To Fight HHS Edict{regardless of if you agree or disagree with the "cause" are you able to support them for standing up for their beliefs? }

 

{regardless of if you agree or disagree with the "cause" are you able to support them for standing up for their beliefs? }

U.S. Bishops Vow To Fight HHS Edict

January 20, 2012
Unconscionable to force citizens to buy contraceptives against their will
No change in limited exemption, only delay in enforcement
Matter of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion
WASHINGTON—The Catholic bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today's announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.

At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.

“This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,” said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”

Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, voiced disappointment with the decision. Catholic hospitals serve one out of six people who seek hospital care annually.

“This was a missed opportunity to be clear on appropriate conscience protection,” Sister Keehan said.

Cardinal-designate Dolan urged that the HHS mandate be overturned.

“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.


---

First Amendment, heath care, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Freedom of Conscience, U.S. bishops, United States Conference of Catholic bishops, President Obama, Sister Carol Keehan

# # # # #

MEDIA CONTACT:
Sr. Mary Ann Walsh
O: 202-541-3200
M: 301-325-7935

 

went ahead and colored a part of this. Not if you agree them, but with standing up to the Obama administration because of their religious beliefs. 

Answer Question
  • SHARE THIS QUESTION:
  •  
vntNyll

Asked by vntNyll at 3:42 PM on Jan. 20, 2012 in Religious Debate

202506 Level 45
Answers (86)
  • of course the now famous and copied by others disclaimer :) Not my words, I copied and pasted :}


    wink link 

    vntNyll

    Comment by vntNyll (original poster) at 3:43 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 202506 Level 45 1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Major
  • Translation: Catholic employers should have the right to deprive their employees of reproductive services as long as they offer a qualified health care plan which makes their employees ineligible to get one elsewhere under additional Obamacare guidelines. Maybe if Catholic Hospitals didn't want their doctors, nurses, secretaries, cafeteria employees and maintenance people to have access to birth control, even if they aren't Catholic, they shouldn't have supported Obamacare in the first place.


    There are many flaws in Obamacare, this is a distraction from the real problems that will impact literally everyone, not just "virtually" everyone, however the speaker decides to define it that day. Especially when in this case, "everyone" is less than 2 million people, many already with state mandated coverage.

    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 3:55 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 235804 Level 46 1 star1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Degree
    Found an answer to your question?
    Like us on Facebook!
  • Translation: Catholic employers should have the right to deprive their employees of reproductive services as long as they offer a qualified health care plan which makes their employees ineligible to get one elsewhere under additional Obamacare guidelines. Maybe if Catholic Hospitals didn't want their doctors, nurses, secretaries, cafeteria employees and maintenance people to have access to birth control, even if they aren't Catholic, they shouldn't have supported Obamacare in the first place.
    xxxxxxxx

    translation: NO I support Jessica and so should everyone else,but I don't support the USCB :)

    thanks for the answer that is all wanted to know.
    vntNyll

    Comment by vntNyll (original poster) at 3:56 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 202506 Level 45 1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Major
  • I'm catholic, so I get where they are coming from. But because they are provided for, does not mean you have to use them.
    They also pay taxes (well, church members do) and according to the US legal system abortions and birth control are not illegal.
    We are all responsible for our own moral well being. I don't necessarily agree in laws that force us to be moral.
    Candi1024

    Answer by Candi1024 at 3:58 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 18258 Level 23 1 star Religious Debate 101
    Found an answer to your question?
    Like us on Facebook!
  • I am not really interested if we agree with the law, but if we can support them for standing up for their beliefs, even if we don't agree.
    vntNyll

    Comment by vntNyll (original poster) at 4:00 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 202506 Level 45 1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Major
  • I'm not even sure why I'm going to bother with this, but here goes nothing (I'm sure I'll need a stiff drink if I come back to read this later). I'm not exactly sure that your comparison is valid. I mean, this isn't even comparing apples and oranges... it's more like comparing apples and elephants.

    I agree that everyone, regardless of beliefs, should have the ability to fight for what they believe in. However, I also believe that, in this case, it is far more complicated than simply removing a banner from a school. The Church has every right to stand up for what they believe in, but the fallout from this, for employees and their families, is far greater. I guess my opinion is this: go ahead and stand up for what you believe, but don't take any gov't money and don't accept medicare/medicaid if you do. You can't have your cake and eat it too....
    anime_mom619

    Answer by anime_mom619 at 4:06 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 52416 Level 32 1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Major
    Found an answer to your question?
    Like us on Facebook!
  • Why are you yelling in such a bold red color? It hurts....
    anime_mom619

    Answer by anime_mom619 at 4:07 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 52416 Level 32 1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Major
    Found an answer to your question?
    Like us on Facebook!
  • translation: NO I support Jessica and so should everyone else,but I don't support the USCB :) thanks for the answer that is all wanted to know.


    Yeah, because standing up against an illegal action is totally the same thing as trying to illegally make church doctrine into a federal law which applies to non-church employees.


    eye rolling

    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 4:08 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 235804 Level 46 1 star1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Degree
    Found an answer to your question?
    Like us on Facebook!
  • I feel they have the right to protest anything they want.
    I do believe that this bill is a violation of our constitutional rights. As such, I think we should all be protesting. JMO
    Dardenella

    Answer by Dardenella at 4:09 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 79803 Level 36 1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Major
    Found an answer to your question?
    Like us on Facebook!
  • you actually don't need to make the comparison, it is not part of the question and i thought CAPS was yelling now you are saying red is yelling? Well, if you look you will see I use red quite often so it nothing new, and is not yelling. If you want to take it as yelling there is not much I can do about it... get your drink I think I may need one now.

    I mean the question is not that hard. You don't have to make a comparison, you don't have to agree, I just want to know if you support them for standing behind their beliefs. Why is that hard to answer without a drink?
    vntNyll

    Comment by vntNyll (original poster) at 4:10 PM on Jan. 20, 2012

    Credits: 202506 Level 45 1 star1 star1 star Religious Debate Major
Need more information? Get answers in less than 5 minutes. Ask your question now!
Or search CafeMom Answers:
 
Advertisement
Advertisement