Did Obama really cave to the Catholic Church? (UPDATED)

I’m not so sure… I mean, isn’t he still mandating what it is Americans can or can’t do without due process?

Obama-threatPresident Obama is scheduled to announce Friday afternoon a revamp of his contraception policy requiring religious institutions to fully pay for birth control, changing the onus on who pays for contraception from employers to insurance companies.

Sources tell CBS News the White House will not back off the administration goal to provide increased access to birth control for women, but it will provide religious institutions additional details on how to comply with the law.

Senior administration officials tells CBS News the new policy will mean female employees of religious institutions will get free contraceptive coverage from health insurers, without employers having to pay for it.

Religious institutions don’t have to cover it, don’t have to pay for it, and they don’t have to refer women to it. It is the insurance companies’ responsibility, per the Obama administration.

I agree with Professor Reynolds:

My advice to the bishops: He’s on the run — don’t settle for his opening bid.

The focus needs to be liberty. Period.  Religious or otherwise and this administration’s attempt to circumvent what our forefathers died on battlefields to give us.

He’s still mandating, to religious organizations and all others, what Americans must purchase, must possess.

The man and those who think like him are still a threat.

Father Z references the words of his good friend Roman Fabrizio to spell it out:

Where am I going with all this?

It’s good  to see such a massive reaction  – albeit only a verbal one so far –  by the US bishops. But if they think that all they have to aim to is for Obama and his Kommissars to drop the contraception mandate they’re in for bitter surprises down the road, and they would prove that they are completely missing what’s at stake here (but some bishops gave me hope with what they wrote).

What I mean is that it is inherent to the very idea of socialized medicine that the state gets to tell you what to do and what to pay for and how much.

It’s all about the delusional thought that unhindered “planning” done by “experts” who “know” is what will make the magic machine work. They may back down on secondary provisions for political/electoral reasons, but the principle they want to enshrine is  that the state is the ultimate and basically the sole provider of healthcare. What it does is bring to completion the utter distortion of the relationship between the individual, the family and all “intermediate bodies” of society and the State. In other words, the contrary of subsidiarity, which is the XX century Catholic name for the originally Catholic concept of “limited government”. Once it’s in place, you can kiss the Declaration of Independence and the whole Land of the Free business goodbye. You’ll be forever a glorified European Union.

Sooner or later, because of the invitable rationing that comes with centralized healthcare, they won’t even need to mandate that you perform abortions or give away condoms. You’ll simply lose all hospitals and schools because there is no way a large independent health provider can survive in such a system. Why do  you think so many Italian hospitals, founded centuries ago, with names of saints and popes, are nowinn the hands of the Sistema Sanitario Nazionale, directly or indirectly? Why do you think there is hardly a Catholic school that is affordable anymore and which teaches anything different from what kids would hear at the Liceo Statale A. Gramsci or what have you?

The contraception/abortion coverage mandate is immoral, we all agree on that, but getting Catholics – and anybody who’s not in the service of the State – out of the healthcare system is PRECISELY what the goverment wants. If they can force you to accept it now, that’s good for the State, they take over indirectly.  If you go the principled way and shut down or sell facilities, that’s good for the State, they take over directly. If you manage to obtain an exemption, that’s still good, the principle of the State running the asylum will still be there and it will become unstoppable before too long and you’ll have to cave in anyway.

You can’t help but wonder if we’ve been played.

America needs to see this man and his minions for what they are.  A threat to our liberty.

UPDATE: Mark Shea calls today’s move a head fake from our tyrant King:

Don’t be a sucker. No compromise. This assault on religious liberty must be utterly defeated and salt sowed in its smoldering ashes. This man is an enemy of the Church and is acting with malice.

Read the whole thing.

Rick Santorum at CPAC
The surprising correlation between gasoline prices and housing starts
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Just for grins I looked around to try to find how much it costs for contraception.

    Found this on US News & World Report.


    Looking at the figures, I’m kind of puzzled.  I was expecting (judging from the heat on sites like Jezebel.Com) that it would be up in the high 3-figures, if not edging over into 4.  (Some of the comments on the more esoteric items indicate a higher price.)   But there’s also little to no lack of family planning clinics for folks who can’t pay, and then there’s Planned Parenthood, who provides low/no cost birth control.

    So why the urge to have government provide it for free?  At what point are we going to be thinking that EVERYTHING we desire/want/need should be provided by government? 

    I don’t want to pay my cell phone bill.  Can I get the government to pay it?  No – I’ve got a choice between paying the bill and having a phone.  I want rib eye steaks every night, but I don’t want to pay for it – so I’ve got a choice over whether I want it enough to pay the prices, or whether I buy something a bit cheaper.  Mortgage?  Same – if I want the house, I pay the money.

    Why is contraception different?

    • Gmacr1

      “I don’t want to pay my cell phone bill.  Can I get the government to pay it? ”

      Why yes, yes you can!


      Personally? I want my own private tropical island!
      I’m sure they can manage to shell out a few clams for a spot in the Pacific.

    • Hank_M

      Excellent comments JL, especially the accurate:

      “But there’s also little to no lack of family planning clinics for folks
      who can’t pay, and then there’s Planned Parenthood, who provides low/no
      cost birth control.”

    • herddog505

      JLawsonAt what point are we going to be thinking that EVERYTHING we desire/want/need should be provided by government? 

      Already there, at least for the deadbeats who comprise the democrat base.  This is, at the heart of it, what OWS is all about.  “We want stuff because we think we’ve got a right to it and we’ll get the government to give it to us!”

  • GarandFan

    I seriously doubt the Church is going to “compromise” on this.  Barry is in bluster mode right now.  He and his pals got screwed on their own polling; the results of biased questions that would lead to the conclusion they wanted.  You want an honest answer, ask an honest question.

    But then, this administration wouldn’t know “honest” if it came up and bit them on the ass.

    • jim_m

      I think they expected that the MSM would be able to successfully cover up the fact that they were taking people’s rights away. The Catholic Church is not that stupid.

      • herddog505

        Perhaps not, but I think that Barry and his gang were hoping that enough individual Catholics are.  They were counting on Catholics being at least apathetic, and really more wedded to “social justice” than the Word of God.  And why not?  How many Catholics routinely vote for politicians who support abortion?

  • jim_m

    The track record is that obama does not respect anyone he deals with.  Back when they had the meetings on healthcare with the GOP he basically ignored everything they came to the table with.  My impression is that he has great disdain for the intelligence of others and does not believe that anyone can see through his machinations. 

    If Levin is corect then obama’s so called compromise is nothing of the sort, but it is just the sort of fakery that he thinks will be sufficient to fool his useflu idiots in the media into proclaiming htat he has actually done something.  The fools will be the religious organizations if they succumb to his mendacity.

  • TaterSalad

    Barack Obama did not “cave in” to pressures to undue the mandate of providing the contraception requirement. He has just “shifted” the mandate from the federal government to the insurance companies and then mandating the insurance companies to provide contraception. 
    The underlying issue here is “still” the mandate requirement by government, thereby breaking down the United States Constitution, Barack Obama’s goal.  It has always been his goal.  There is no other goal. It is the same with government’s intervention and control of the Commerce Clause, thereby demanding that YOU buy insurance or be taxed/fined.  Religious Freedom, guaranteed under the Constitution………out the door.

  • First, by proposing this action Obama violated his oath of office by failing to defend the First Amendment.

    Second, no Obama “promise” is worth any more than the paper it is written on and comes with an expiration date of “when it’s no longer convenient to me.”

    Third, such a violation of the oath of office arising from an attempt to abrogate the First Amendment should be disqualifying for any candidate for any office from either side of the aisle.

  • TaterSalad

    Why Barack Obama wants America to fail?

    If Barack Obama has no regard for a person or child “before” they are born, why would He have any regards for them “after” they are born?

    Question: Why does He have to live in this country of laws and respect?  His answer is to “change the Constitution” as it is written and usher in another form of government.  He hates this countries laws and Constitution.

  • Obama is providing access to birth control for those Americans who want it.

    Employees of the church are still american citizens.

    What those citizens do in the privacy of their homes is their own business, but the church wants to dictate what their employees do when they’re off the clock.

    It’s shameful.

    • Nobody is preventing employees of the RCC from buying birth control with their own money.

    • jim_m

      Not true.  The church does not want to pay for what those employees do in the privacy of their homes when they are off the clock.

      There’s a difference.

      What is shameful is the left’s insistance that religious conviction should have to give way to their ideology.

      •  Good to know that if Obama proposes a way for those folks who work for the church to get the same access that everyone else has, and the church doesn’t have to pay for it, that the right won’t stand in the way…

        Because that’s what he’s going to do…

        • jim_m

          Actaully his proposal is that somehow the insurance companies will pay for it gratis. 

          Sorry, but no one honestly believes that the cost of contraception will not be bundled into the cost of insurance for other things.  That was my point about obama’s immoral attitude that I made down thread.  The church will still be paying the insurers so they will still be paying for the contraception.  obama’s proposal is poorly conceived (no pun intended) and fools no one. 

          •  There is a net savings to the insurance company to provide contraceptives – so there is no hidden cost. It’s cheaper to provide contraceptives then to pay for childbirth or abortion.

            Sorry, but you clowns spent two weeks painting yourselves into a corner, only to get punked by PBO – and now the world is laughing at you.

          • jim_m

            It isn’t about net savings.  It is about funding something that is defines as morally objectionable.  The whole point is that contraception has some cost associated with it and that cost will be paid by someone.  It doesn’t matter that those costs may be offset by savings elsewhere. 

            The objection is spending any money on a morally objectionable activity.  The money has to come from somewhere.  obama believes that it will be free.  it simply isn’t.  offsetting savings are irrelevant.

          •  The church isn’t funding it. The insurance company is out the savings its generating by providing the contraceptives.

            It really is game, set and match, but the right can go ahead and follow the same logic they’ve followed for the last 2 weeks….

          • jim_m

            You sir are an ignorant ass.  You actually believe that NO money is being spent on contraception under obama’s plan.  That is the onlyt way that the church is not in some way directly or indirectly funding it.

          • None of the church’s money, No. Not a single cent of the church’s payment to the insurance company is going towards contraceptives. Not one red cent.

            The insurance company is paying for it, not the church.

            And the church’s payments to the insurance company are going to be less than 1% of the insurance company’s revenues — but you’ve decided that fraction of a percent is THE money that the insurance company is going to spend on contraceptives, ignoring all of the medical and prescription benefits that the insurance company is providing..

            lol, I love sparring with you.

          • jim_m

             Not provable. 


            Money goes into a general account for the insurance company.  Disbursements go out,  You would have to say that insurers will have a separate fund that the Church pays into and that all disbursements for church employees are paid out of that same fund.

            Can’t be done.  Won’t be done.

          •  I hope the church uses that argument, but I think they’re smart enough not to… it really points out the  shallow vapidness and lying… This was never about “religious freedom”…

          • Stephen, whether of not it actually costs anythingis UTTERLY AND IN ALLWAYS IRRELEVANT. They are being forced to pay for and provide a planwhich provides it.  ENdof story, that is a vilolation of the constitution,game, set, match, season,lifetime series.

          • jim_m

             I know I have won with Stevie when he starts calling me a liar.  It means he’s run out of rational argument.

          •  He never had any.

          • No, really, you are sparring with yourself, because you refuse to address anyone’s points and just repeat your nonsense.

          • Wild_Willie

            Correct Jim. Stephan is, has been and always will be an ignorant ass. I don’t engage the learning disability crowd. It is lose lose. Best to right him off as another whacko with no point of view past bumper sticker slogans. ww

          •  Shorter – and Rodney has told you this too. Quit engaging – you look like an ass.

      • Jim, you’re arguing morals with someone who doesn’t believe in them, who doesn’t seem to have any comprehension of them. Faith and morality are foreign concepts to Stevie, and I say that as an agnostic.

        • jim_m

           I know, but he provides a useful foil to explain to others who might have thought that this was about the money.

          And I’m not a Catholic, but I respect their honestly held beliefs, beliefs the church has been consistent with for hundreds of years.

    • GarandFan

       You really do have your head up your ass.

    • Birth control is readily available.  (Shrug.)  I don’t see it’s the goverment’s duty to pay for it for that that want to use it.

    • Obama is providing access to birth control for those Americans who want it.

      They already have it, Stevie. Birth control is not expensive.

      Employees of the church are still american citizens.

      In Stevie-land, “citizen” means “serf.” Obey the government, do what you are told. It’s for your own good. I’m sorry, you object on moral grounds to our orders? Too bad. Deal with it, churchy.

      What those citizens do in the privacy of their homes is their own
      business, but the church wants to dictate what their employees do when
      they’re off the clock.

      No, Stevie, the church doesn’t want to be forced to pay for something that it is morally opposed to. Do you not understand that basic concept?

      It’s shameful.

      Your attempt to change the focus of the argument? yes, it’s shameful.

      I don’t get it. You’re not a stupid person, Stevie, yet you’re being willfully obtuse. You know full well this matter isn’t about “providing birth control.” Birth control is cheap and easily available. It isn’t about the church trying to interfere with what’s going on in the bedroom… they have a moral objection to birth control, whatever you (or I) may feel about it. You know these things, yet you argue them with a straight face. Do you actually believe the tripe you post here? I’m beginning to think you don’t.

      • “No, Stevie, the church doesn’t want to be forced to pay for something that it is morally opposed to. Do you not understand that basic concept?”

        That argument is so 3 hours ago.

        Now the church doesn’t have to pay for it – but surprise, surprise – we now learn that isn’t the problem after all…

        Meaning the officials of the Catholic Church have been lying to the American people for the last 2 weeks.

        No wonder organized religion is declining faster than union membership.

        • jim_m

          No wonder organized religion is declining faster than union membership.

          Wrong again dumbass: The Roman Catholic Church is growing in every region on earth:

          The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in the America


          •  You do have  reading comprehension problem, don’t you?

            You must have been home schooled, or maybe its the “IQ” thing some people associate with conservatives.

            Did I say the Catholic Church is declining? Did I, Jim.

            Can’t you read?

            Were you home-schooled? Or just plain dumb?

          • jim_m

            The RCC is one of the most visible organized religions in the world  It is growing at a faster rate than the world population.  Therefore I sincerely doubt that you can provide any stats that verify your claim that organized religion is shrinking faster than unions.  I doubt that you can provide meaningful info that says it is shrinking in aggregate at all.

            Add to that the fact that there are many independent churches in the US that are not members of a large denomination that are growing like gangbusters.  Most mega churches in the US are not associated with major denominations.  While it is true that some denominations are shrinking it isn’t true in general.

          • jim_m

             In case you can’t figure it out yourself you need to show us that the combined loss in membership for all other religions from 2000 to 2008 exceeds ~130 million people.

            And since the RCC is growing at a rate greater than global population growth it is growing not only in total number but also as a percentage of the population. (in case you missed that point too)

        • That argument is so 3 hours ago.


          •  The church doesn’t have to pay for it – that was solved 3 hours ago.

            Believe it.

          • Considering the title of this very post is “Did Obama really cave to the Catholic Church,” considering you yourself have been arguing this subject, considering that this isn’t about the church PAYING for it, no… the issue isn’t “solved.”

        • That argument is so 3 hours ago.


    • SO someone does not have access to something unless its paid for by other people?  When is my government mandated free gun coming down the pipe?

    • Asprin, between the knees, held tight.  Absolutely free.

  • Obama is failing to honor his oath of office.  Shameful.

    Obama is failing to support the Constitution.  Shameful.

    Obama promises one thing and does another.  Shameful.

    Obama’s supporters enable this shameful behavior.  Shameful.

  • jim_m

    This should show you what kind of morals obama has.  He believes that if you can get someone else to pay for or perform the immoral act for you that you are absolved of responsibility.  How many unlawful or immoral things have gone on in his admin because he believes that he won’t be responsible and won’t be held to account?  

    There’s always someone to throw under the bus.  Tony Rezco is in prison for the same kind of dirty real estate deals that got obama his Hyde Park house.  Someone else ordered Project Fast & Furious. 

    The one uniting theme of his Presidency is that someone else is at fault.

    •  I’ve known alleycats that cleaved to a higher moral standard.

      • jim_m

        You’ve met Bill Clinton?

        • Heh!

          No, but the alleycats I’ve known have higher standards than Slick Willy as well.

  • Par4Course

    PIG LIPSTICK:  What Sen. Obama said during the 2008 campaign has a ring of truth regarding today’s White House announcement:  “That’s just calling the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink…”

  • LiberalNightmare

    If you can mandate that Catholics must pay for abortions, you can mandate that catholic hospitals must perform abortions.

    • jim_m

      This is not dissimilar to the recent Hosanna Tabor SCOTUS case.  The admin argued that the government should be able to determine who held a ministrerial role in the church and that religious organizations were subject to the full breadth of employment law.  The rammifications were that had the admin won, churches would have been open to discrimination lawsuits from the EEOC for not hiring minority pastors/ministers despite the fact that there were no minority candidates available.  SCOTUS saw through the arguments and ruled against the admin 9-0.

      This contraception issue is of a piece with the admins campaign to erode religious liberties. 

      Santorum’s comments today at CPAC are right when he says that the admin believes that rights come from government and that when that becomes the case that government can coerce you into doing all sorts of things in order to exercise your rights.  That is exactly what the admin is attempting to do with this issue.

    •  That’s endgame,LiberalNightmare. This is the first toe in the water…

  • More

    Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception

    After two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on
    contraception access under the banner of “religous freedom,” Obama
    finally announced what the White House is proposing an accomodation of
    religiously affiliated employers who don’t want to offer birth control
    coverage as part of their insurance plans. In those situations, the
    insurance companies will have to reach out directly to employees and
    offer contraception coverage for free, without going through the
    employer. Insurance companies are down with the plan, because as Matt Yglesias explained at Moneybox,
    contraception actually saves insurance companies money, since it’s
    cheaper than abortion and far cheaper than childbirth. Because the
    insurance companies have to reach out to employees directly, there’s
    very little danger of women not getting coverage because they are
    unaware they’re eligible.


    • jim_m

       Yes and the LA Times,  that Bulwark of conservatism, calls obama’s plan “Magical Thinking”

      Making everyone in a pool carry coverage whether they need it or not
      spreads the cost, saving money for those who really do need it and who’d
      choose to carry it if it were merely optional. But costs faced by the
      insurer are the same — and when the care is provided with no
      out-of-pocket costs, the insurer’s costs are likely to go up because
      more people will use it. Such is likely to be the case with

      obama says that it will be provided for free, but reality is that someone always has to pay.  Insurance companies will pass on that cost to every policy they issue.  The church will still be paying for contraception.

      • It’s cheaper for the insurance companies to provide contraceptives then it is to pay for childbirth, so there is no cost to providing the contraceptives — there is a savings.

        • jim_m

          The objection was never cost.

          The only ones putting a dollar value on life are the leftists.

          • jim_m

            The point is that it costs money. period.  It doesn’t matter if those costs may be offset by savings elsewhere.  The issue is that the church is paying for an activity that it finds morally objectionable.  It does not matter that the insurance company might save money elsewhere, the church is paying the insurer to cover the employees and the insurer is paying for the contraception.  Therefore the church will still be funding the contraception.  That’s why the LA Times calls it majical thinking from obama.

          • No, the point is that it doesn’t cost money – it saves  the insurance company money.

            It’s cheaper to provide contraceptives then it is to provide child birthing and abortions.

            Since the church has set this up as an either/or – the cost savings are real. If they (the insurance companies) don’t provide contraceptives it will cost them more than if they do provide contraceptives.

          • jim_m

             One more time:  Contraceptives themselves cost money.  It does not matter if their cost s offset by savings somewhere else.  Money spent by the insurance company will still pay for contraceptives even if the insurer saves money elsewhere. 

            The church is not interested in the bottom line savings.  It is interested in whether or not money is supporting the action it finds objectionable.  Money is paying for contraceptives.  They are not simply growing on trees.

            The issue is that the church objects to contraception on religious doctrine grounds.  It does not matter that the bottom line cost is reduced by doing so.  The church objects to the use of contraception and it therefore objects to covering it in their insurance policy. 

          • Just keep repeating the same BS and sooner or later most of the conservatives will believe you

            Not me.

            “It does not matter if their cost s offset by savings somewhere else. 
            Money spent by the insurance company will still pay for contraceptives
            even if the insurer saves money elsewhere. “

            Right. Money spent by the insurance company -not by the church.


            And here we thought the problem was religious freedom. That was lies and bullshit told to you by officers of the Catholic Church.

            The problem the Catholic Church and its dogmatic followers have is NOT that the church will have to pay for it — and that being forced to pay for it iolates their religious freedom – that’s just another right wing lie.’

            The problem the church has is that the contraceptives are being provided in the first place.

            And like I’ve been saying for weeks now – the Catholic Church does not get to choose which Americans get contraceptives and which Americans don’t.

            The argument that this is a matter of religious freedom was shot down, dissected and buried.

            We NOW know it’s all about the Churh deciding that Americans won’t have access to contraceptives.

          • jim_m

            Does the employer pay part of the insurance costs for their employees?

            Yes.  Therefore if the insurance company is paying for the contraception and the Church is paying money to the insurer, then some of that money is necessarily going to pay for contraception.

            Geez you’re dumb.

          • Nope, The contraceptives are being paid for out of the insurance company’s savings.

            The insurance companies have agreed to that.

            You can make up bullshit and declare  it so, Jim – but surprise, surprise, only the rubes believe you.

          • jim_m

            Get out of the basement and ask mommy if you can borrow her dictionary and look up the word “Fungible”

          •  sure, dig a deeper hole airhead.

          •  Jim, you’re wasting your time. He doesn’t understand.

          • jim_m

            I know.  He’s one of those leftists that does not believe that anyone else has any right to sincerely held beliefs.

          •  lol…

          • jim_m

            And he just proved it.

          •  lol…

          • THe point is, they have NO legal or constitutional right to FORCE them to provide it.  You don’t have a right to “Free’ contraception.  I want you to PLEASE point out the clause that provides that for you.

        •  Then let those companies that wish to pay do so. Believe me, insurance companies are all about saving money.

          Y’see, Stevie, you know that that isn’t the issue here. It’s not about cost. The cost is trivial, really. It’s about moral objection, and your belief that the government has the power to force someone to do something they object to on religious grounds.

          •  And here we’ve been told for weeks that its amatter of “religious freedom”.

            If the Church isn’t paying for it then they have no religious grounds to deny access to American citizens in their employ.

            The rights of US citizens are not changed by the fact that the Catholic Church objects to those freedoms.

          • jim_m

             If the church is paying the insurance company ANY money you cannot say that some of that money is not funding the contraception.  Money is fungible.  You cannot say that it isn’t going in part to fund contraception.  It is an illusion. 

            One would think that if even MSM outlets like the LA Times are calling obama’s plan “magical thinking” that you would be able to grasp this.

          • Brucehenry

            Not really weighing in here, Jim, just asking a question:

            If money is fungible, and Insurance Company X offers two plans, Plan One for Catholic institutions that DOESN’T offer contraceptives, and Plan Two for other institutions that DOES offer them, couldn’t the Catholics object to that, too? After all, premiums for Plan One and Plan Two would both go into the same general fund, right?

             Wouldn’t they be forced to find a company, say Company Z, that ONLY offers Plan One?

          • jim_m

             I see your point, however, the one argument is that an insurance company should not be using funds from one contract to pay the liabilities from another.

            While what you say is technically possible, it is somewhat different from saying that somehow the profits only from other contracts will be used to pay for the offensive parts of the one contract.

            It’s really far simpler to say that the church is paying for a set of services and that is that.  What obama wants is to say that they are paying for services and somehow a miracle happens and money materializes to pay for these additional services.

            The money comes from somewhere.  It is sophistry to declare that t comes not from the profits from the church contracts but from somewhere else that cannot be proven,

          • Brucehenry

            Insurance doesn’t work like that, does it? They pay the benefits from general revenues, right? That’s why you can be paid thousands in benefits after paying one premium.

            So, how fungible IS the money the Church pays in? If they have no objection to paying premiums to the general fund of a company that ALSO offers contraceptive-inclusive plans (to others), then how can they object to an insurance company paying for contraceptives out of funds from revenues OTHER than the premiums they paid?

            Or is money exactly as fungible as they (and you) wish it to be to make their point?

            It seems to me that Stephen’s point is valid, depending on HOW fungible you think money is.

          • jim_m

             I think a little of both.  Yes money goes into a fund for paying liabilities, but every contract is calculated to make money and if one contract is making less money then the next is going to pay more to ensure that the insurance company maintains its operating margin. 

            If the contraception actaully does decrease costs then you really are taking the money from the church to pay for the contraception because you don’t need to use revenues from another contract to pay for it.

            I don’t see this as a satisfactory solution but who knows?  Maybe the church is willing to compromise its values.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I think this may be a little over-blown, considering Obama’a willingness to rewrite the rules. If the Church can accept the moral hazard of paying premiums to companies that offer both plans, then it can accept that coverage will be paid out of general revenues from it’s insurer.

            The fact that conservatives don’t want to let this go seems to me to be evidence of political gamesmanship.

          • jim_m

             See my response below about using money from other contracts.

          • jim_m

             So is the insurance company going to pass along the alleged savings from offering the contraception coverage or is it going to pocket the money?  Taking the money would be unethical as it is an excessive profit.  The left would be furious if it were an oil company, but I guess it is OK to make excessive profits if you are ripping off a religious organization.

          • jim_m

            I mean seriously,  do you want to be IBM, paying extra money in your contract to subsidize the insurance company paying for the unfunded liabilities from the Catholic church contract?  Not likely.

            This is what some ignorant people do not understand. The money comes from somewhere. Either it is from the church and you are laundering it through the insurance company or it is through other customers and you are stealing the money from them.

          • jim_m

            This is the point.  You never can simply take the money from profits from other contracts.  Since you need to maintain some margin, inevitably you are charging the other contracts extra money to make up for the fact that you are subsidizing the church contract through them.

            What obama is suggesting is that the insurance companies have agreed to make less money as a favor to him.  No one takes that seriously.  If I were an investor I would want the heads of the executives that agreed to make less profit.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s my understanding that 28 states already require that insurers pay for contraceptive coverage, even on plans covering religious institutions. Where has the outrage been until now?

            It’s also my understanding that something like 77% of Catholic institutions CURRENTLY offer contraceptive coverage for their employees ( I could be wrong about the percentage but it’s more than half). Where has the outrage been? Where has all the concern been about paying for “morally objectionable” coverage?

          • jim_m

             The issue is that some have a religious conviction that it is wrong.  Are you arguing that because some people have different convictions that any given conviction is therefore invalid?

            I don’t think that argument wins in the Supreme Court.

          • Brucehenry

            NO,my point is that this is a tempestin a teapot blown out of proportion to demonize Obama and claim he’swaging a “War on religion.”

          • THat is pretty much false.  For example, they list Georgia as one of those. . . and its flat out not true in Georgia.  There are ways to avoid it that are used, in Georgia.

          • It IS a matter of religious freedom. Note… I didn’t put those words in quotes, Stevie.

            The church isn’t denying access to  birth control. They are simply refusing to pay for it themselves on religious grounds. Those people can still go out and buy birth control themselves… and birth control is not expensive.

            DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND? This is a basic concept, and yet I feel like I’m trying to explain British military history to a hedgehog.

            The rights of US citizens are not changed by the fact that the Catholic Church objects to those freedoms

            Which specific right are you talking about, Stevie? Which right has the Catholic Church attempted to change?

            Update: still waiting for an answer, troll. You’ve been back, replied to numerous other messages… let’s hear it: Which specific right are you talking about, Stevie? Which right has the Catholic Church attempted to change?

        • GarandFan

          ” so there is no cost to providing the contraceptives ”

          Yeah, those pills just magically appear, like carbon-free unicorn farts.

        • LIberals love this kind of logic, thinking they can create value out of thin air just by committing a bit of mental sophistry.

    • GarandFan

       What a load of unadulterated bullshit!

  • It’s no change at all, except cosmetic – which of course satisfies the sort of idiot or miscreant who supports Obama anyway.

    •  Fellow travelers and useful idiots all.

      End the obamanation 2012!

  • 0bama punks his legal team

    The legal team defending the Obama [mal]Administration’s Health Care bill before the Supreme Court now must defend the bill against First Amendment challenges before a court which ruled unanimously in Hossana-Tabor v EEOC that churches do indeed enjoy First Amendment protections against government regulation.  While none of the legal team would comment on or off the record, all were observed facepalming when news of the Obama [mal]Administration’s policy were announced.

    [This concludes (for the moment) the mockery of a Wizbang troll who will remain un-named]

  • Yep Barry couldn’t get his way with the SCOTUS, so he punked his way around the decision. That hasn’t worked too well either. He will try another angle to get ObamaCare into the religious community. This speech was just a white wash. Hasn’t he learned by now that whenever someone touches the issues of guns and religion, that person will generate a firestorm that can derail a campaign? This latest is strike two in the guns and religion field and it again shows how ignorant the Washington D C establishment really is of the people they have contempt for.

  • ombdz

    “Did Obama really cave to the Catholic Church?”  Uhh, in what alternate universe is that even a legitimate question?  Today’s presser was a distinction without a difference – the same old policy dressed up in new clothes.  Since Obama was just being Obama in pushing this nonsense through in the first place, the fault lies at least as much with those useful idiots who paved the way for him to push through his dictates …  http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

  • herddog505

    The key question that’s being (deliberately, IMO) missed by lefties in this is the freedom of conscience.  Can government insist that a person or organization do something, no matter how beneficent the intent or how low the cost, that is morally repugnant to them?

    Hint: at least one government in history thought so.  Pretty sure you can figure out who they were.

    Reichsbischof*, anybody?


    (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_M%C3%BCller_(theologian)

  • Hugh_G

    I didn’t know religious liberty was guaranteed to insurance companies. Funny what you learn on rightie blogs.

    •  Ah, so the people in organizations don’t have civil rights? The right to object, the right to freedom of religion? Religious liberty is guaranteed to EVERYONE, leftist drone. That includes people you don’t like who run insurance companies.

      But, hey, let’s run with your idea. Let’s force Amnesty International to pay the costs of American prisons. Can we force Greenpeace to buy SUVs? Make Dreamworks Animation donate equally to Republicans and Democrats?

      • jim_m

         The problem is that these leftists have no idea about accounting and how money moves in an organization.  That’s why these idiots fell for the whole “lock box” BS from the dems a few years back.

      • herddog505


      • Hugh_G

        Ummm, you must be a Romney man cause you think companies are persons.

         You see there is a law, one I admit you righties hate, that mandated that insurance COMPANIES not insurance PERSONS do certain things. Only a right wing nincompoop such as yourself could believe that insurance COMPANIES are guaranteed religious liberty.

        The rest of your silly response is straw man bullshit that I don’t think even you believe.

    • jim_m

       It isn’t about insurance companies.  obama’s plan is that the insurance company is somehow going to pay for the contraception out of its own pocket, but you cannot verify that the money for the rest of the healthcare insurance is not paying for it in part.

      The only way that the money is not in some way subsidizing contraception is if a totally different insurance company is paying for he contraception.  Are you saying that some company not paid for insurance by the church is just going to come forward and say, “Hey!  We’ll pay for that!”  It’s delusional. 

      If the church is paying the insurance company to cover its employees and the insurance company is spending money to provide contraception to those employees it is very difficult to say that the church is not at the very least indirectly paying for it.

      •  The Insurance companies have agreed to pay for the contraceptives out of funds other than those paid by the church.

        How many times has that been repeated and yet you still pretend to not hear it.

        The church objected on freedom of religious grounds, complaining that they shouldn’t hae to pay for the contraceptives.

        The church doesn’t have to pay for the contraceptives.

        • jim_m

          I have stated several times that money is fungible.  If you do not understand that concept it would not surprise me.

          • Stevie is sitting there trying to figure out why you’re talking about mushrooms.

          • jim_m


          •  lol…

          •  And you’re reduced to replying with “lol.”

            You’ve lost, and you know it.

          • So, if you found out that your insurance policy also made payments to Syria for the suppression of the local population, but “They didn’t charge you for it” Would you not have a problem with paying for the policy?

    • herddog505

      I, on the other hand, am not surprised to know that lefties regard religious liberty (or any liberty, for that matter) as something to be doled out by them on a case-by-case basis.

      But thank you for reinforcing my point, i.e. that the left, for all their yap about freedom and “keep your laws off my body!” have interest in REAL freedom of conscience (which is what the First Amendment is really about).

      Say… does this mean that, if the GOP can get the White House and majorities in the Congress, that they can ban advertizing campaigns by (for example) unions, the DNC, or other lefty organizations?  After all, freedom of speech isn’t guaranteed to organizations, is it?

  • (comment moved to the correct thread)

  • LiberalNightmare

    Just for the fun of it, imagine this exact same scenario happening again in 2013.
    Only this time, Obama doesn’t give a fancy crap who the Catholics vote for in the next election.

    See you in November.

  • herddog505

    Another point (H/T AoSHQ):

    So, Barry tried to tell the Catholic Church how they have to spend their money.  That proved politically unpopular so, he picked somebody else to cough up the money.

    I’m sorry: when was he made dictator?  I must have missed that.

    And the left, of course, is perfectly fine with this.  I’m not sure whether it’s anti-religious bigotry (“How DARE those damned mackerel snappers REFUSE to pay for a Woman’s Right to Choose!(TM)), or that they really don’t have a problem with a dictator in the White House so long as he has a (d) after his name.

    What else can Barry tell people or organizations that they MUST pay for?

  • It doesnt matter what Obama says the church will or wont be paying for.  Come Nov 5 he will change it so that the church will pay.  Once the election is over, win or especially lose, there will be nothing to stop him.  If you think it is bad now just wait.

  • ackwired

    The Catholic Bishops must have been laying for him on this one.  Who would have guessed that they would care so much about contraception.  Child rape didn’t seem to bother them.  Obama looked like someone who just realized that something he said was offensive to some group (was that really not politically correct?).  I still don’t feel comfortable about a church running a business and using it’s religious status to avoid meeting the same governmental regulations that it’s competitors have to meet.  I just feel that we might be on a slippery slope.

    • And another anti-Catholic bigot self identifies.

      • ackwired

        You confuse bigotry with cynicism.  Bigots stereotype groups of people and assign the negative qualities, or percieved negative qualities, of some to all members of the group.  I am simply cynical about the Catholic Bishops moral outrage.  It is based on history.  You will find that in political matters, you can never be too cynical.

        From: Disqus
        To: [email protected]
        Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:51 PM
        Subject: [wizbang] Re: Did Obama really cave to the Catholic Church? (UPDATED)
        Disqus generic email template

        Rodney G. Graves wrote, in response to ackwired:
        And anothe anti-Catholic bigot self identifies.
        Link to comment

    • LiberalNightmare

      Aaaand we come to the end of any reasonable discussion,

  • Brian_R_Allen

    ….  0=Zero and those who feel (advisedly – totalitarians do not “think”)  like him are still a threat ….

    America has never faced a more deadly dangerous threat than that presently posed it by the world’s most dangerous dullard. 

    And to think I once thought the likes of Missus Billy-Bubbah Blythe (“Cli’ton) Al-Fredo “I’m smart” Gore-leone and John Forbes Julia Stimson Thorne Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões Ferreira Heinz Kohn Kerry were as dangerously dullard as even “Democrats” came. 


  • Jay

    … Seriously?  I can’t believe people actually feel that Obama is on the wrong side of this argument when 98% of Catholic women agreed with his position.

    • I, on the other hand, can believe a progressive would suggest that a constitutional protection (or any other legal protection) be abrogated on the basis of being unpopular.

      • Jay

        Which is understood as having nothing to do with the issue here.  Religious affiliated schools, hospitals, etc merely give the option of contraceptives.  That’s not an encroachment on religion.

        •  Requiring them to fund it most certainly is, and the insurance company will most certainly be taking it out of the fungible premiums paid by those Catholic institutions.  There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch or a free contraceptive; someone always pays.

  • Houston Keys

    Like Pope John Paul’s stance against Russia, this is where the Catholic Church needs to stand their ground and fight for what they believe in.  If they don’t stop Obama now, then he will make the standards more and more outlandish.