We Will Not Comply takes on new meaning (UPDATED)

May 21, 2012 | Filed under Obama Regime,Religious Liberty | Posted by

Fascinating happenings coming from many of the nation’s Catholics… God bless ‘em:

WillnotcomplyCatholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, in one of the biggest coordinated legal challenges to the rule to date. 

Claiming their “fundamental rights hang in the balance,” a total of 43 plaintiffs filed a dozen separate lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the requirement. Among the organizations were the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. 

…

A statement from the University of Notre Dame said the requirement would still call on religious-affiliated groups to “facilitate” coverage “for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church.” 

“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching. It also authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently ‘religious’ to warrant an exemption from the requirement,” the statement said. 

I’m one hundred percent in agreement with the plaintiffs and quite frankly, if you’re not, you damned well ought to be.

I don’t expect Obama and his minions to take this lying down, in fact, quite the opposite.

Things could get rough for faithful Catholics… not so much for cultural Catholics…

If you consider yourself a Catholic, which are you?

UPDATE: Bishop Dolan, the proverbial face of opposition to Obama’s HHS mandate, has issued a related statement:

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.”

« « A Blogger at NATO 2012, What I Saw on Day One
Chris Christie: Obama is “walking around in a dark room trying to find the light switch of leadership” » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 21, 2012.
Filed under Obama Regime, Religious Liberty.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!

  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • McGehee

    I’m no longer a Catholic, but they’re in the right on this and have my full support.

  • herddog505

    1.  Where is the ACLU on this?

    2.  How long before SanFran Nan, Jean-Francois Kerry, and other prominent liberal Catholics come out of the woodwork to tell everybody that the stand the diocese are taking violates Catholic teachings about “freedom of conscience” and that Jesus Himself would oppose the Church on this one?

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    IMHO, every Christian who is not a Catholic should take the side of the plaintiffs. You don’t have to agree with the Catholic Church’s opinion about contraception in order to defend freedom of religion.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_G7YIUZMXOD5JGZZTCYMVA75KFU Shadow

       Well said, I am not Catholic but as a Christian I will stand with them on their right to freely practice their faith.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      I am not a Catholic and I do indeed support the Roman Catholic Church in their suits against the 0bama Administration in defense of the First Amendment.

  • Guest

    Food fight! Catholics on this side of the room (the faithful ones, not the cultural ones) and Obama and our Constitution on the other side.

    Cause the question at hand is the rights of the people (in this case the employees of Notre Dame et al) versus the rights of the Catholic, non-profit corporations .

    Surprised? It’s the people versus corporations as usual, in this instance the corporations suing are religious non-profit corporations, but its still the rights of the people versus the rights of corporations. These lawsuits have been filed by corporations.

    And it sounds like Notre Dame is claiming protection under the Constitution because… as we all know, corporations are people my friend.

    No surprise at this development.

    And if the Catholic church decided that their interpretation of the bible meant that employees shouldn’t be provided heart medication or medication to control diabetes or any other provision they deemed against their religious tenets — then employees wouldn’t receive that benefit either?

    Yep, that’s what’s at stake here.

    • Sky__Captain

      A simple queswtion for Grumpy to answer:

      Whatever happened the the “separation of Church and State”?

      Answer the question. No distraction.

      • TomInCali

        This is the separation of church and state. The state imposed a law that applies to all relevant organizations, without consideration of religious affiliation or non-affiliation. Do you think separation of church and state means that religious organizations get to exempt themselves from laws that they don’t like? Just for fun, which laws do you think Muslims would like to exempt themselves from?

        • jim_m

           So under your constitution the state gets to force you to violate your sincerely held religious belief because the state determines that it is better for society to do so?

          Please then explain why muslim organizations, which believe that health insurance is a form of gambling and therefore a sin, are exempted?  Are muslim women not deserving of the same health care? 

          Are you just being a bunch of racists (because you won’t stand up for the rights of muslims) or are you the same hypocritical anti-Christian bigots that we have seen before?

          • TomInCali

            Your “facts” are wobbly.

            Having gone through the list, we can say with certainty that no
            Muslim group, and indeed no non-Christian group, has ever qualified for
            an exemption under the statute used to define exempt religious groups in
            the health care law.
            Nor are they likely to want to, says Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on
            American-Islamic Relations, which opposes discrimination and defamation
            against Muslims. “I’ve never even heard it brought up as an issue,”
            Hooper told us. “I have health insurance. We give health insurance to
            our employees. Every Muslim group I know of does the same thing.” Hooper
            told us that he has seen some Muslims raise religious objections to
            life insurance, but not health insurance, and that, in fact, providing
            health coverage is very much in line with Islamic ideals of social
            justice.

            http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/dhimmitude-and-the-muslim-exemption/

          • jim_m

             If you are using CAIR as your source of information about islam you might as well be using Hamas.  I wouldn’t believe anything they said if you paid me.

          • TomInCali

            Actually, I’m using factcheck.org. Nice duck of the issue, though.

            Though even if you just focus on CAIR, it seems that even one of the most extreme — in the view of many — Muslim organizations isn’t doing what you claim Muslim organizations are doing. If you know of more moderate ones who fight to be exempt from health insurance, let us know.

          • jim_m

             Fact check also has a bad habit of spinning things for the obama admin. 

            The reality is that the law does give an exemption.  Whether or not organizations will be allowed to access that exemption has yet to be seen.  Since obamacare does not come into effect for another year we will not know until someone demands the exemption and it is either allowed (as the law seems to say it should be) or it is denied.

          • Brucehenry

            Which Muslim organizations are exempt, Jim?

          • jim_m

             Any claiming the exemption under the obamacare act

            ”EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

            —In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate
            under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by
            section 5000A, the following information: In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.” Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274

            To be fair this may also be applicable to Christian Scientists and to the Amish, both of which hold the use of health insurance as being against their religion.So we see that certain religious objections are OK and others are not.  This is the admin being capricious and arbitrary and deciding that it doesn’t like one religious belief so it will legislate that adherents be forced to violate that belief.  The concept of separation of church and state goes both ways.  The government should not be deciding which religious practices are good enough to be allowed an exemption and which are not.  In this case the practice of exempting the Catholics from funding abortions is long standing and the Catholic belief against contraception and abortions is even older than that.

          • Brucehenry

            Which Muslim organizations are CLAIMING exemption, then?

            Also, isn’t the section you have cited dealing with individuals, not organizations?

          • jim_m

             See my comment above, since obamacare has not taken effect no organizations have been forced to claim an exemption.  The test will come when someone does claim an exemption(as will inevitably happen) and then the admin will be forced to either give it (as the law seems to say they must) or deny it.

            One of the main issues is that small business owners are individuals and so far we have seen that small businesses will not be exempted on the abortion and contraception issues.  Do you honestly think that if a muslim organization demanded an exemption that they would not get it?  The leftist desire to not make waves with the muslim community virtually guarantees that they will.

          • Brucehenry

            You must be on the Huston Report Investigative Team. Motto: News I’m Sure Will Happen, Probably!

        • McGehee

          The First Amendment still protects the free exercise of religion. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to take a job in a Catholic hospital if they disagree with the church’s teachings.

          The issue is whether the State has the authority — under a Constitution that includes protections such as the free exercise clause — to impose this law. Given the Obama Maladministration’s ineptitude on constitutional matters thus far, it’s not at all inapt to question whether they and their supporters (like you and the Grumpkinhead) aren’t just totally off your rockers on this.

          • TomInCali

            The First Amendment still protects the free exercise of religion. Nobody
            is forced at gunpoint to take a job in a Catholic hospital if they
            disagree with the church’s teachings.

            And no church is forced at gunpoint to establish a hospital or university if they disagree with laws respecting hospitals and universities. Keep in mind that churches ARE exempt from this law. It’s only the secondary organizations that they run that are not.

            And no, it’s not at all inapt to question the law. That’s what courts are for.

          • jim_m

            And no church is forced at gunpoint to establish a hospital or university

            You do realize that the very existence of our universities is owed to the church?  You do understand that the church sees as integral to its mission of providing for the poor and the sick that it establish hospitals?  This is part of the church’s missionary activity for 2 millennia.  ut I suppose that you really don’t give a rat’s ass about what the church believes. Because the church is against killing babies you think that they should have to cease doing the good they have done for centuries and they should just go away.

            The point is that if you don’t want to work for a Catholic Hospital you don’t have to.  I have worked for 4 different hospitals in my career and none were Catholic.  However, it is less easy for a diocese to decide that it wants to close up shop and move to a different country.  THAT is what you demand that the church do.

            Really the problem we have here is the left’s inability to understand how other people think.  The inability to understand where others come from means that the left is incapable of giving any credence to belief systems that they themselves do not ascribe to.  On the one hand they see no problem in violating the religious convictions of Catholics and on the other they cannot see the dangers in the religious fanaticism of the islamic radicals who want to kill non-believers.  They assume that both are merely poses because they lack any sincerely in their own beliefs.

          • TomInCali

            You meander from one point to another, change the subject, introduce irrelevant issues, and abandon previous positions that are proven false. You do this so often, it’s getting kind of pointless to keep debating with you.

          • jim_m

            So it is meandering to quote your comment and address it directly?

            Yes, it is pointless to debate if you will make an assertion and then run away from it when you realize that you are wrong.  At least have the guts to admit that your position was ignorant.

          • TomInCali

            You quoted me, yes. But then with statements like “the very existence of our universities is owed to the church” and suggesting I want churches and/or hospitals to go away is pretty far from my quote.

            Yes, it is pointless to debate if you will make an assertion and then
            run away from it when you realize that you are wrong.  At least have the
            guts to admit that your position was ignorant.

            Good philosophy. Let’s see you apply it to your position that Muslim organizations are exempt from health insurance requirements. Do you have the guts to admit that your position was ignorant? Or will you keep running from it when you realize that you are wrong?

          • Jvette

             You realize, I hope, that ALL of these institutions existed before the laws, and that because they will not comply with recent laws that violate the moral teachings of the Church, Catholic institutions have been forced to cease some of the social services they have provided for decades.

          • TomInCali

            They existed before FDA regulations also. But I doubt that you are suggesting that hospitals not be subject to drug safety requirements simply because they predate the legislation.

          • Jvette

             That argument is a red herring. FDA regulations and hospital standards are designed to protect the health of the patients and do no force the hospital to provide drugs or procedures that are in complete opposition to the moral teachings of the Church.

            You said that no church was forced at gunpoint to open a hospital. I pointed out that these hospitals and other institutions existed before the law that compels them to go against their religious convictions.

            Big difference.

          • Wild_Willie

            Tomln said:  Do you think separation of church and state means that religious organizations get to exempt themselves from laws that they don’t like?

            Now that question/statement says all you need to know about his knowledge of the law. ww

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

          TomInCali,

          “Do you think separation of church and state means that religious
          organizations get to exempt themselves from laws that they don’t like? ”

          Yes. 
          Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal

          Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1943)

          Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)

          Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

          Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

          There are more.  Are you interested?

          • jim_m

             The fact is that the left hates religion and especially Christianity.  They will accommodate any other brand of BS but not one that says that there is a standard of behavior that we need to try to adhere to.

          • TomInCali

            Did you bother to read up on any of those cases before you copied and pasted them? They are like apples and oranges to the current situation. All but Torcaso deal with telling the government they cannot compel individuals to take action in violation of religious beliefs. And Torcaso reaffirms that religious tests (what some here want for the current discussion) are unconstitutional.

            All of these made good reading, but none are on topic.

          • herddog505

            TomInCali – All but Torcaso deal with telling the government they cannot compel individuals to take action in violation of religious beliefs.

            Gosh, I wonder where the Court might have gotten the idea that the government hasn’t got this authority?

            /sarc

            Now, pray explain why, if the government cannot force INDIVIDUALS to take action in violation of their religious beliefs, it may force a church to do so.

          • TomInCali

            It isn’t. Churches are exempt. Try to keep up.

          • jim_m

             So then you are saying that religious freedom ends at the church door.  Once you exit the confines of the church, the government can dictate how you practice and express your religious beliefs.  If you are not acting specifically as a church you are not entitled to any allowance for religious conviction.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

            TomInCali,

            ” All but Torcaso deal with telling the government they cannot compel
            individuals to take action in violation of religious beliefs”

            Wow.  You got me.  You win.  Let’s all agree that the  government cannot compel individuals to take action in violation of religious beliefs.  Now, what was this post about?

          • TomInCali

            There are accommodations in the law for individuals to appeal for exemption from the mandate on conscientious objector grounds. So if that’s all you want, you got it.

            Besides, you know that there are limits to such things. You can’t kill and get away with it, citing religion.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

            Good Tom.  I got it.  And the director of the Catholic Hospital, does he get it too?  How about the CFO of the Catholic University?  Can he refuse to write checks for insurance policies that go against his conscience?  Does he get it too?

          • jim_m

             OK then.  So an individual can claim an exemption.  Does that extend to a sole proprietorship? 

            If the answer to that is yes, then does it apply to a partnership?  Is it OK to violate the rights of two people who work together but not a person working on his own? 

            If you are OK with a partnership getting an exemption then what is your argument against a corporation?  After all, a corporation is merely a legal entity designed to offer some legal shelter to liability for an individual or members of a partnership. 

            Just trying to see if you will apply some logic to your beliefs.

          • Wild_Willie

            Tomln wrote:  Do you think separation of church and state means that religious organizations get to exempt themselves from laws that they don’t like?

            Can a statement/question get less stupid? ww

          • SCSIwuzzy

            You do realize that telling Catholic hospitals that they must fund, directly or indirectly, contraception, is compelling them to take action that is violation of their religious beliefs?

        • Wild_Willie

          Actually you should fact check first Tomln.  There are religious organizations that get a pass on the drug law for rituals, the Amish get a pass on building code laws, etc. Why? The government cannot tell a religious organization how to believe and worship. Facts. Know them. ww

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

      Grumpster,

      “Food fight! Catholics on this side of the room (the faithful ones, not
      the cultural ones) and Obama and our Constitution on the other side.”

      The First Sentence of the First Amendment to our Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

      It does not say “organized religion.”  If the free exercise of my religion precludes me from paying for contraceptives or abortion, I should be free not to.  TomInCali says that the “law applies to all relevant organizations” while the Constitution says nothing about “organizations.”  I believe that the Grumpster ought to read the Constitution before commenting on it.

      • Guest

        So, what your saying is, if a religion was established that practiced human sacrifice then the laws of the United States could not impinge upon the practice of that religion?

        Of course that’s false.

        ” If the free exercise of my religion precludes me from paying for contraceptives or abortion, I should be free not to.”

        And if the free exercise of your religion included human sacrifice you should be free to do that?

        So, clearly, laws can be established that limit or prevent the complete, unhindered practice of a religion.

        Pretty amazing that you couldn’t figure that out on your own.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

          I guess “established that practiced human sacrifice” would be a case of reducio ad absurdum.  But the Supreme Court of the U.S. has found that the state does not have a compelling interest in interfering with many religious practices.  You can see my response to TomInCali, or, if that is too hard,

          Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal

          Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1943)

          Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)

          Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

          Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

          On the other hand, Obama’s effort to put religious groups “under his thumb” may be a case of human sacrifice – the sacrifice of his own political career.  In which case, I would still be correct.

          • Guest

            The state doesn’t interfere in practices that don’t violate the law.

            And the exception proves the rule. The Exception — “cannot violate the law” proves the rule, specifically proving that religions have the “freedom to do anything that doesn’t violate the law”.

            Your suggestion that Obama wants to oppress religions is absurd.

            Obama offered an accomodation so that those employers don’t have to pay for contraceptive coverage, but the Catholic bishops just couldn’t get their hands out of a woman’s vagina, and they refused to allow their female employees any contraceptive coverage — even when they aren’t being required to pay for it and it’s provided by free by the insurance companies.

            Sacrifice, my ass (and I don’t mean that literally).

          • jim_m

            The state doesn’t interfere in practices that don’t violate the law.

            Ah, but this didn’t violate the law until obama crafted a law that specifically went out of the way to make their practices illegal.  So you are saying that the state can decide that any religious behavior can be legislated out of existence as long as the government can pass a law prohibiting that behavior.

            So in your view the 1st amendment really doesn’t protect religion. it protects government from religion.  Somehow I don’t think that was the intent of the framers.

          • herddog505

            jim_m – [Y]ou are saying that the state can decide that any religious behavior can be legislated out of existence as long as the government can pass a law prohibiting that behavior.

            BINGO!

          • Guest

            Absolutely and without question, yes. Religious practices must comply with the law — religions are not exempt from the law. They can’t practice human sacrifice, they can’t use illegal drugs, they can’t violate civil rights.

            yes, just like everybody else in our country, members of a church may practice a religion only so long as it complies with the law.

            “Religious freedom” does not mean “free from obeying the law”.

          • herddog505

            NEW FOR 2012!  The all-new and improved FIRST AMENDMENT:


            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  But if Congress DOES (especially when it comes to those damned dirty pedophile-priest worshipping mackerel snappers), that’s, like, TOTALLY fine.

          • jim_m

             Religious freedom means not having laws that restrict your freedom or force you to violate the tenets of your religion.  Too bad you are too freaking ignorant to understand what freedom is.  To you freedom is slavery to the state and blind obedience to your political masters

          • jim_m

            Oh, and that accommodation was not any accommodation at all.  This so-called compromise was that the insurance companies were being leaned on to say that they would pay for the contraception and abortion coverage themselves, but the church was astute enough to recognize that in reality all that was being offered was contraception and abortion at a discount and they were still, in effect, paying for it. 

            It was good enough to fool useful idiots like grumpy but everyone else was able to see through it.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/YSM6XGIY2CLRQKYDB746ZVVUUI Texas Accountant

            The Grumpster,

            “The state doesn’t interfere in practices that don’t violate the law.”

            Did you google any of the court cases?  Many were cases where the religious practice violated the law.  For example, “Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal” was a case where the religious practice violated the drug laws.

            There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

          • retired.military

            nothing is free dumbass.  Someone always pays in the end.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            TANSTAAFL

          • SCSIwuzzy

            They pay the insurance company.  The insurance company doesn’t charge the individual, but they don’t give it away for free.  They take the cost of these “free” things from the backend.  Which is funded by the employer. 

        • Wild_Willie

          Grumpy, you are being silly.

    • LiberalNightmare

       Wow, its rare to see someone get it THAT wrong.

      Keep up the good work Shirley.

  • TomInCali

    By the way, I’m not sure what “new meaning” could be taken on by “we will not comply”, but “we will pursue available legal appeal through the courts in accordance with the law” doesn’t sound like one of them.

    • Guest

      it’s just old fashioned sabre rattling – they learned if from dubya. It doesn’t work but heck, they feel like such cowboys when they declare “hell no!”

  • GarandFan

    The Kool Aid drinkers can spew  the Democrat’s twisted logic all they want.  I’ll prepare the crow for them.  FYI, it will be served cold after the court decision is rendered unto The Obamassiah, HOPEFULLY in the following manner:  “Take the stupid halo off your pointed head, deity you are not.  What part, Constitutional Law Professor, of the 1st Amendment do you not understand.  Your final grade is F-.”

    In the meantime, I imagine The Chosen One is really ticked at the Death-Bed Catholics in his administration who assured him that Catholic organizations would roll over on this issue.

  • 914

    C’mon Grumpless! push it out!!

  • Sky__Captain

    I see Grumpy is ignoring my question.

    What else can one expect from someone with a 12-year-old mentality?
    Proof of that is the immature and incorrect crap he puts in his headline…
     

  • ackwired

    Good for the plaintiffs.  This is a matter that should be decided by the courts. 

    • Sky__Captain

       I’ll agree with that, with the provision it be decided before November.

      • TomInCali

        Funny how they’re “activist judges” when they decide in ways you oppose, but defenders of the Constitution otherwise.

        • jim_m

           Yeah, that happens when you are against judges making up new “rights” that are not found in the constitution.  Do be so kind as to identify a new right that a judge has found that the right wing has been so in favor of.

      • ackwired

        I’m sure that you will hear plenty about it during that time frame.  But it is a constitutional question.  So whoever loses will be talking about an amendment, such as the proposed amendment to ban abortion or the proposed amendment to deny corporations of all of the same rights as humans.  It’s good to live in a country that values fairness.

  • Pingback: Breaking: Cardinal Dolan of NY, Cardinal Wuerl of D.C., Notre Dame–And 40 Other Catholic Dioceses and Organizations–Sue Obama Administration – John Malcolm

  • Rick Spyker

    ” If you consider yourself a Catholic, which are you?” To me (and I think to the Church) there’s just Catholic and non-Catholic. People who consistently vote for Democrats and who call themselves Catholic are nominal Catholics at best. By supporting a party so rabidly pro-abortion, they are committing a mortal sin and they definitely should not be taking communion. In fact I think Catholic churches in very liberal areas where Democrats continue to get elected probably should just stop serving communion. To receive the Host while in such a state is just compounding a heinous sin. Also, I think the Church is pretty clear on politicians who vote to support abortion rights. They are excommunicated latae sententiae. In other words, it’s just automatic excommunication. People such as Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other far-Left Dems are therefore manifestly NOT Catholic, despite their claims to the contrary. Personally, I have serious doubts that there are any Catholics on the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      The Church and the laity aren’t so easily defined.  Some of the positions are clearly Right, others are clearly Left.  The Democratis Party position of Abortion Uber Alles developed over time, and some folks have been traditionally dems for so long they haven’t noticed or taken stock of just how high the issue is in the party list of priorities.  On the other side, the Republican’s don’t offer a clear alternative on other issues to make people jump ship.
      Given the options, the folks that are “dems because, well, we’re dems” will stay there out of inertia until something changes the equation.  This fight will shake some loose into the independent category or into the Republicans (Greens, Libertarians etc aren’t good options for people that leave one party over abortion)

  • Guest

    From a legal standpoint, the Catholic organizations have a stronger case under RFRA than I previously thought.  

    From a political standpoint, I have zero interest in providing an exemption for Catholic organizations that fulfill a primarily secular purpose.

    Edited to add:

    On issue after issue, whether legislative prayer, same-sex marriage, or abortion, I have seen a religious conservative movement that is completely indifferent to others’ rights and is hardly shy about inflicting its own views on others. Moreover, that movement has demonstrated a complete lack of interest in compromise on such issues. So why should I aver even one ounce of political support or sympathy when religious conservatives believe their ox is being gored?

    • herddog505

      For the same reason that, for example, I would (hopefully!) stand up for the free speech rights of a pack of damned dirty reds or the free assembly rights of (gag) nazis or the klan.

      A thing is either right or it is wrong.  I’m not so pure as to not enjoy the spectacle of people I dislike being screwed over, but I shouldn’t stand by and let it happen without protesting.

      • Guest

        I understand where you’re coming from there, Herd.  But there’s a little thing called reciprocity.  

        • herddog505

          In fact, certainly (very few of us are saints).  In principle, not at all.

  • herddog505

    Odd, ain’t it, that Barry can give away scads of waivers to some organizations (unions and other donors as well as big corporations that he can’t buck at the moment), but the Catholic Church gets bupkus.

    O’ course, that’s likely to change if the political heat gets to be too much and his polling shows that Catholics start deserting him in sufficient numbers…

    HEY!  Maybe he’ll make a courageous, unprecedented, historic announcement that his views have “evolved” and he’ll grant the Catholic Church a waiver!  He can even have a sit-down with Cwissy Matthews (I believe that he’s a Catholic) to discuss it on prime-time TV.

    • Hank_M

       Excellent point, on the waivers, herddog.
      There are more than 1200 waivers so far. And ironically enough, 1 in 5 of the latest batch of waivers went to businesses in Pelosi’s district in SF.

      But I don’t see Obama granting one here. It will completely undermine the stupid so-called war on women theme they’ve been pushing.

  • Par4Course

    Even as an atheist, I stand with the Bishops on this.  But I’m not sure this is a fight Obama even wants to win.  If ObamaCare is found to violate the First Amendment, then the Pres. can say this just shows that the only way to provide full coverage is through a Single Payer healthcare system, which is what he wants anyway.

    • herddog505

      I think that he’d take that as a consolation prize (or, at least, his supporters would), but having the SCOTUS shoot down his landmark, historic, unprecedented, courageous, signature legislation would be a real blow to his prestige, something no president wants, especially when he’s trying for reelection.

  • Idahoser

    this power grab is plainly anti-American and unconstitutional.  There should be nobody deluded enough to support this idiot.
    It’s our own fault.  If we hadn’t settled for mr. “I had to abandon free market principles to save the free market system”, there could never have been such an incompetent communist puppet elected.  Rudy McRombee will ensure whoever comes next will make us wish for Zero back.  We did this.