Mar 2, 2012
Sandra Fluke is a law student attending Georgetown University. On Thursday, February 22, 2012 Ms. Fluke appeared before a “Democrats only” “hearing” on the issue of forcing religious institutions to cover abortions and contraception in health plans even if those items are against the religious and moral teachings of the institution.
For all intents and purposes, this was dog and pony show to continue the Democrats fight against the First Amendment and religious freedom. Ms. Fluke was the only person “testifying” at the hearing which was chaired by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
During the hearing:
Fluke said women at Catholic schools expect to “be treated equally,” expect to have “all of our medical needs” met, and expect the university to “respect our choices” on health insurance.
“We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere,” Fluke said.
“And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.”
Let’s examine those statements one by one.
Ms. Fluke says she expects to “be treated equally.” As far as we know, Ms. Fluke is being treated no different than any other student on campus. Her medical coverage is the same as anyone else. What Ms. Fluke is really saying is she demands the school do what she wants and go against the school’s moral and religious teachings.
Feb 11, 2012
The ObamaCare requirement forcing organizations and people of faith to act against their religious and moral beliefs was back in the limelight yesterday when President Obama stepped to the podium in the White House.
After one reads his remarks, you just have to wonder how stupid does he think we all are? Does he really think we can’t see the lies and distortions? Or is he so used to being loved by the press and the left he thinks he can get away with this?
Whether you’re a teacher, or a small businesswoman, or a nurse, or a janitor, no woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes. Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period. This basic principle is already the law in 28 states across the country.
Now, as we move to implement this rule, however, we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here –- and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution. As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.
The Catholic Chruch, as are many other religions, is against some of the procedures and services the government is demanding be paid for by the Catholic Church. The Church teaches these practices are wrong, but women are still free to obtain them. The Catholic Church would prefer to see these services not be practiced by their members as the church does not condone what they teach is sin. However, they are not forcing their teachings by law on everyone. Women are still in control of the medical decisions. That is not the issue. The issue is “who pays for those decisions?”
Obama tries to make the false equivalency a woman making a choice (which is not under attack) and his belief he can tell a person and institution to go against their moral and religious beliefs.
Has he not read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Feb 9, 2012
Today’s letter comes to us from Vicki Impoco of Satellite Beach, Florida. Impoco used to write on a blog sponsored by the Florida Today where she showed her willingness to support anything from President Obama and the left. It is one thing to support something based on ideology. It is another thing to support something based on the type of ignorance Impoco demonstrates in her letter to the editor on February 7, 2012.
The letter gains the title from the editors of the Florida Today newspaper of:
Letter: Obamacare birth-control mandate draws support
We don’t see one letter from someone such as Impoco as “drawing support,” but that is a matter of interpretation.
The letter reads:
Kathleen Parker, in her Sunday column “Freedom of conscience,” states “Catholic institutions are under siege by the federal government vis-a-vis the Affordable Care Act, which requires nearly all employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception.”
Religious employers whose “primary purpose is the inculcation of religious values and who primarily employ and serve those who share their religious tenets” are exempt from the new mandates.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other anti-contraceptive groups want the exemption to include all religiously affiliated universities, hospitals and other nonprofits. This exception expansion would block birth-control coverage for millions of women and families.
Parker states, “This politically inept and morally fungible step reveals utter disregard for religious liberty.”
The separation of church and state is clearly enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. To demand the state follow the dictates of some religious organizations while they receive federal tax dollars and benefit from a tax-exempt status is equivalent to the promotion of a state religion that tramples on the religious and civil liberties of us all.
Where to begin?
May 17, 2011
DISCLAIMER: It is our position here at Raised on Hoecakes that health care is not a “right” as rights are traditionally defined. The argument that heath care is a right finds no support in the writings of the Founding Fathers, or the writings from others upon which the Founding Fathers argued, discussed, debated and understood the word “rights” to mean. We agree with Rand Paul that health care is not a “right.”
The headline from the Louisville Courier-Journal screams the controversy:
Rand Paul under fire for equating the right to health care with slavery
“With regard to the idea of whether or not you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies,” Paul, a Bowling Green, Ky., ophthalmologist, said at a Senate hearing Wednesday on community health care centers. “It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me.”
“It means you believe in slavery,” he said.
Apr 25, 2011
Years ago, there was an advertising campaign for Reese’s Peanut Butter cups. Ads would show two people – one eating chocolate and the other eating peanut butter – walking down the street. They would bump into each other and one would say “Hey! You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!” The other would reply “You got your peanut butter in my chocolate!”
Of this post, one could say “Hey! You got health care in my regulation post!” or “Hey! You got regulations in my health care post!” Hopefully, like Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, the post will be better with the two ideas as opposed to keeping them separate.
When it comes to health care, many people look to Canada as a system to which the United States should aspire. This is despite the fact that Canada has long waiting lists, rationed health and many of Canada’s citizens cross into the US to pay for higher quality services in a more timely manner. Of course, such a system requires “regulations” that are absolutely absurd.
Imagine if you will that you are a married dentist with a loving spouse. You provide dental services to the spouse. After all, who wouldn’t use their expertise to support their family? Would you expect a mechanic to send his spouse’s car to another mechanic? Would you expect an electrician to farm out wiring a new light switch in your home?
Yet in Canada, the regulation exists that if you as a doctor perform services for a spouse you may be charged with sexual abuse.