In a sane and decent world, this would get implemented with no pushback. We shall see.The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) hosted an event Thursday announcing their new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), and Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) all talked about why there was a need for the division, citing specific religious freedom violations that occurred under the Obama administration.“We face today a time of rising religious persecution,” McCarthy told those gathered, “it’s not violent, it’s not done in the name of God but it is a new orthodoxy and it is an intolerant dissent. Nuns have been forced to put aside their lives of service of the elderly and sit and have to go to court humbly requesting that they not be required to pay for practices that end the lives of children.”McCarthy was referencing the Little Sisters of the Poor’s ongoing lawsuit against the Obamacare contraceptive mandate which they declined to comply with due to religious objections.He also mentioned the current case facing the Supreme Court of pregnancy centers “forced against their deepest beliefs to advertise for an abortion industry bankrolled by the state.”McCarthy said he has “high hopes that violations of the Weldon amendment and the arrogance of the California abortion mandate AB775 will be investigated and resolved quickly.” He was referencing a 2014 mandate by the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) requiring insurers to cover elective abortions, something he told Townhall in December that he’s working with the administration to address."In the past this office sent the message, now is not the time for freedom, it is time for you to conform. What a difference one year makes," he observed.McCarthy’s sentiment about the changes at HHS was echoed throughout the event. Dr. Everett Piper of Oklahoma Wesleyan University expressed it in the pithiest fashion, commenting, “I want to say how good it is thanking OCR rather than suing them.”His university was among those challenging the Obamacare contraceptive mandate on religious grounds.Sen. James Lankford thanked OCR for recognizing that “religious intolerance is a personal choice not a legal requirement.”
Thursday, January 18, 2018
This is an excellent move
If we have to have a Health and Human Services Department, at least it ought to include this:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't contraception and abortion a personal and currently lawful choice as well? So if a portion of Obamacare premium dollars goes towards same what business is it of those who choose to eschew such practices? Are they seeking to deny coverage for such lawful practices for others because they violate their personal religious beliefs? What's their beef?
ReplyDeleteWhat do they want, coverage for procedures, medicine and supplies acceptable to their God and exclusions per God for what they deem God deems unacceptable?
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point. Businesses and charitable organizations are private entities and don''t have to offer anybody in this world anything they don't want to. That's the core principle here, the only one we should be talking about.
ReplyDeleteSo, in answer to the question you pose in your second comment, that's exactly right. "Coverage for procedures, medicine and supplies acceptable to their God."
Top make them do otherwise is rank tyranny.
One last point: It's not "their God." It's the one true living God of all creation.
To you and me and a few billion others our God is the one true living God so He declines coverage huh? I learned that he grants full freedom of choice. Kind of a multi line life policy that grants benefits for eternity I know, but your only call is you and mine is me. Don't kill babies, don't contracept if you don't want to whatever. But I'm probably still missing the point, huh?
ReplyDeleteYes, and it’s obvious that it’s deliberate.
ReplyDeleteThe point is when the ACA was enacted the law changed. Now the Republicans have killed the individual mandate with the same hubris and intransigence with which it was enacted but try S they may they have yet to kill the bill. Not sure where we're headed now until likely after the midterms not the hot iron will strike as often as possible over the ensuing months. We will be listening to a lot of lies the Trump economy tells us all year now I'm a desperate effort by the Republicans to regroup
ReplyDeleteWhat's deliberate about it? Art thou my arbitrator?
ReplyDeleteYou're still skirting the main point. Your mention of the individual mandate, while a bit of a digression, does sever to further bolster that observation.
ReplyDeleteHere's the main point again: Government has no business telling private organizations what to do. And that certainly goes for individuals as well. Hence the complete wrongness of the individual mandate. Government has no business making citizens buy some kind of consumer product.
But back to the actual subject of the post: What this measure id designed to get away from is government telling organizations, "You have to provide a benefit to your employees that violates your religious principles."
Now, as to what's deliberate about it: Way down inside you know better than to endorse government coercion.
I certainly don't endorse government coercian even skim deep. But I've lived with taxes and I've lived with insurance premiums, even social insurance premiums all your lifetime plus mine too so none of this comes as any kind of sudden shock to me. Not only has it evolved this way, it's largely tried, if not true (boo Hoo) Constitutiomal law.
ReplyDeleteWhether it's a shock or not and whether it's law or not is beside the point. It's wrong. All you had to say was that you don't endorse it. The rest is superfluous.
ReplyDeleteI'm realistic. You're idealistic, longing for
ReplyDeletewhat you've only heard about in history books, but if you think that makes you a true patriot I know you won't let stupid little old me rain on your charade.
Wrong, huh? Then what the hell do we have a constitutional process to decide these matters for?
ReplyDeleteTo strive to see that what is right prevails.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division is a good thing? That’s a question that only requires a yes or no answer - and substantiation for that answer. It doesn’t allow for any deflection or digression.
ReplyDeleteSo do you?
No I do not think it is a good thing nor do I think it will fly. I personally, like many Catholic Dems going all the way back to Al Smith, try to separate my church from the state.
ReplyDeleteI've said many times that I think the rise of the moral majority greatly damaged, not government, but Christianity and is a major reason Xers and Millennials feel alienated from it. It's been a real turn off, all he judges and judgers.
ReplyDeleteYou are giving a pass to the extermination of millions of fetal Americans
ReplyDeleteYou think it’s fine for the government to make Christians sin.
ReplyDelete