Unacceptable
From a statement signed by Notre Dame law professor Carter Snead (pictured), president of Catholic University John Garvey, Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, Christendom College chairman of the board Donna Bethell and nearly two dozen others:
Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.
This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy....
It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.
Read the entire document here.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Unacceptable
Peter,
(from Feb 10)
Mollie,
You are right on it now. I've been talking to Adam about this for a while. The very first Clause of the first amendment should be called the Religion Clause. It should be divided into two phrases. The Establishment Phrase and The Free Exercise Phrase. These two phrases are meant to offset each other. You know, checks and balances, the hallmark of the American Constitution. Exercise is meant to balance Establishment. Establishment is maintaining religious liberty by supressing all religion. Exercise maintains religious liberty by protecting all religion.
For over 100 years Marxist inspired left wingers have been hiding behind the Establishment Phrase. They push it exclusively because they wish to destroy religion completely. What we must do is counter attack by using the Free Exercise Phrase. This will be a religious broad based approach. Every faith that is serious in this country will have a stake in Victory! It is exactly this issue that you are looking for in your post. When the government either passes a law or interprets a law in a fashion which egregiously makes the practice of religion virtually impossible then Free Exercise must be invoked.
(cont.)
Dec '10
Re: Unacceptable
(cont. from #1)
In addition to the fact that the two phrases of the first Clause are a check and balance to each other, something else should be noted.
The Religion Clause (Establishment & Exercise together) is the First enumerated Right of the Bill of Rights. This is no accident! The founding fathers are obviously placing this first because it is a Primary Right. I am a Kantian so I have the inside track but Kant is writing during the exact same period as the founders are writing the Constitution. It is no surprise for a Kantian that the Religion Clause is placed first. The first Postulate of the MetaEthics is that of Gd. Kant is saying specifically that you can not make an Ethics work without a single transcendental Gd as it's foundation. This is why The Religion Clause is the Primary Right of the Bill of Rights.
LET'S PICK THE FLAG UP OUT OF THE MUD AND ATTACK!!!
Regards,
Jim
Jan '11
Re: Unacceptable
No one is fooled by this administration anymore.
This battle is far from over.
Nov '11
Re: Unacceptable
It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews,Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept as assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.
That's what I'm talking about right there.
Jul '11
Re: Unacceptable
But KC, it's all about women's rights and those nasty religious nuts. Obama picked a fight with many layers but the old guard will stand in the front lines. Good for Notre Dame.
Jul '11
Re: Unacceptable
The essence of obamacare is that the Feds have control....of everything.
Jan '11
Re: Unacceptable
Yeah, I know. It's so predictable, so juvenile ... but they'll try it anyway. Tomorrow morning's roundtables of brilliant political analysis will include Democrat strategists wondering what this president has to do to placate such extremists.
We should answer: get it right.
May '10
Re: Unacceptable
Good. The war is on.
Nov '11
Re: Unacceptable
Doc: How long before it's made illegal to opt out of Medicare? If O wins this year, I predict it before the end of his second term. Sorry to be off-topic.
Jul '11
Re: Unacceptable
Mothership Greg, that has to be one of his plans. This administration is far reaching.
Jun '10
Re: Unacceptable
Prepare for battle.
Jun '10
Re: Unacceptable
"Be it known to you that we have made a league -- all the Jesuits (then the heroes of Catholicism) in the world -- cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God, it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted: so it must be restored."
-St. Edmund Campion
Nov '11
Re: Unacceptable
DrRich seems to think 2013. He also says in that article:
So it has never been a question to DrRich whether our Progressive leaders will act to stop direct-pay medical practices. The only question has been how they will do it.
May '10
Re: Unacceptable
This letter makes me proud of my Alma Mater.
Kathryn Lopez at the Corner linked an updated version of the letter Saturday afternoon. More signatories have been added, among them Fr. Wilson Miscamble, CSC, who was a guest contributor to Ricochet several months ago.
Can one of the editors ask him to post some thoughts on the controversy, and possibly Notre Dame's place in it, on Ricochet? It would be much appreciated.
Edited on February 12, 2012 at 6:37amApr '11
Re: Unacceptable
Woo, woo. My sister is name-checked on Ricochet.
Note that Christendom College is a private Catholic college unaffiliated with any religious order, and like Hillsdale takes no government funding.
May '11
Re: Unacceptable
I think it was Lileks who said a perfect state of being for the left is when married lesbians can have their abortions paid for by someone else.
Apr '11
Re: Unacceptable
It's heartening to see fight from the places it should be coming.
Hopefully the hierarchy (still to jaded to call them leadership) of these individuals institutional homes will, however belatedly, stand as their roles demand.
We owe them whatever encouragement and support we can give them - including relentless pressure.
Feb '11
Re: Unacceptable
Grendel: Woo, woo. My sister is name-checked on Ricochet.
Note that Christendom College is a private Catholic college unaffiliated with any religious order, and like Hillsdale takes no government funding. · 16 hours ago
Grendel -- is your sister Donna Bethell?
Oct '10
Re: Unacceptable
Not sure if it's sad or disappointing or infuriating, or all 3, but none of the signatories is affiliated with Boston College, the largest Jesuit university in America.