White House misrepresents contraceptive mandate, says USCCB

News release from USCCB
Feb. 3, 2012

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued the following response to the February 2 post on the White House blog.

Full text follows:

The Obama administration, to justify its widely criticized mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage in private health plans, has posted a set of false and misleading claims on the White House blog (“Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions,” February 1). In what follows, each White House claim is quoted with a response.

Claim: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.” 

Response: This is not entirely true. To be eligible, even churches and houses of worship must show the government that they hire and serve primarily people of their own faith and have the inculcation of religious values as their purpose. Some churches may have service to the broader community as a major focus, for example, by providing direct service to the poor regardless of faith. Such churches would be denied an exemption precisely because their service to the common good is so great. More importantly, the vast array of other religious organizations – schools, hospitals, universities, charitable institutions – will clearly not be exempt.

Claim: “No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections. For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.”

Response: It is true that these rules directly apply to employers and insurers, not providers, but this is beside the point: The Administration is forcing individuals and institutions, including religious employers, to sponsor and subsidize what they consider immoral. Less directly, the classification of these drugs and procedures as basic “preventive services” will increase pressures on doctors, nurses and pharmacists to provide them in order to participate in private health plans – and no current federal conscience law prevents that from happening. Finally, because the mandate includes abortifacient drugs, it violates one of the “existing conscience protections” (the Weldon amendment) for which the Administration expresses “strong support.”

Claim: “No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover. Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

Response: The statement that no one will be forced to buy it is false. Women who want contraception will be able to obtain it without co-pay or deductible precisely because women who do not want contraception will be forced to help pay for it through their premiums. This mandate passes costs from those who want the service, to those who object to it.

Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”

Response: False. The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects. RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well.

Claim: “Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”

Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false. All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA). None of these havens is available under the federal mandate. It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption. It is broader: It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion. Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.

Claim: “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.”

Response: This is irrelevant, and it is presented in a misleading way. If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so? But this claim also mangles the data to create a false impression. The study actually says this is true of 98% of “sexually experienced” women. The more relevant statistic is that the drugs and devices subject to this mandate (sterilization, hormonal prescription contraceptives and IUDs) are used by 69% of those women who are “sexually active” and “do not want to become pregnant.” Surely that is a minority of the general public, yet every man and woman who needs health insurance will have to pay for this coverage. The drugs that the mandate’s supporters say will be most advanced by the new rule, because they have the highest co-pays and deductibles now, are powerful but risky injectable and implantable hormonal contraceptives, now used by perhaps 5% of women. The mandate is intended to change women’s reproductive behavior, not only reflect it.

Claim: “Contraception coverage reduces costs: While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, insurers and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost. The National Business Group on Health estimated that it would cost employers 15 to 17 percent more not to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of potentially unintended and unhealthy pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.”

Response: The government is violating our religious freedom to save money? If the claim is true it is hard to say there is a need for a mandate: Secular insurers and employers who don’t object will want to purchase the coverage to save money, and those who object can leave it alone. But this claim also seems to rest on some assumptions: That prescription contraceptives are the only way to avoid “unintended and unhealthy pregnancy,” for example, or that increasing access to contraceptives necessarily produces significant reductions in unintended pregnancies. The latter assumption has been cast into doubt by numerous studies.

Claim: “The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. And as we move forward, our strong partnerships with religious organizations will continue.”

Response: False. There is no “balance” in the final HHS rule — one side has prevailed entirely, as the mandate and exemption remain entirely unchanged from August 2011, despite many thousands of comments filed since then indicating intense opposition. Indeed, the White House Press Secretary declared on January 31, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here,” so little was placed on that side of the scale. The Administration’s stance on religious liberty has also been shown in other ways. Recently it argued before the Supreme Court that religious organizations have no greater right under the First amendment to hire or fire their own ministers than secular organizations have over their leaders — a claim that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court as “extreme” and “untenable.” The Administration recently denied a human trafficking grant to a Catholic service provider with high objective scores, and gave part of that grant instead to a provider with not just lower, but failing, objective scores, all because the Catholic provider refused in conscience to compromise the same moral and religious beliefs at issue here. Such action violates not only federal conscience laws, but President Obama’s executive order assuring “faith-based” organizations that they will be able to serve the public in federal programs without compromising their faith.

READER COMMENTS

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 5:04 AM By BETH
Satan is the Father of lies, it appears that Obama is one of his sons. Obama through his czars and appointees is dismantling the US Constitution and religious freedom. If he can force people to violate their legitimate religious conscience, he can eventually outlaw the Bible on the basis that it is a discriminatory book, which clearly states that divorce (from a valid marriage with remarriage); homosexual acts; killing the unborn (abortion), elderly and sick (euthanasia); etc; violate God’s laws including – “Thou Shall not kill”. All Christians, Jews, people of Faith, and people of good will – BEWARE of OBAMA and his smooth forked tongue.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 5:44 AM By Prof Helen
The Bishops should have read the president’s book before they gave their tacit support for his election. it was obvious that he opposed religious liberty.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 6:06 AM By Ted
If Catholic institutions of any type employed “primarily people of their own faith”, they would be told by the government that they are illegally discriminating in their hiring practices. The conscience exception as narrowly defined is a trap, a “Catch 22”. Write every senator and member of Congress to let them know that their re-election depends on the administration correcting this, or them passing a law to loosen it with a veto-proof majority. This cannot stand, it must be overturned by us, the people.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 6:44 AM By kaves1
Under the HHS plan does anyone know who will be paying for the contraceptive, abortion drugs, sterilizations? Supposedly not the user if you belief HHS. Will it be the schools, hospitals, etc or the govt?

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 7:23 AM By Tom in San Jose
Beware a devious October surprise from Obama, in which, assuming a tight election, he decides to grant the Church a last minute waiver in order to buy a gullible Catholic “gratitude” vote in November. His hard-left base will be dissappointed, but they’ll vote for him anyway, knowing full well that once Obama has another 4 years, he will work to give him anything they ask for. Indeed, he would probably even find a way of rolling back any waiver granted to the Church before the election.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 7:32 AM By Tom Barbarie
The bishops should be taken by their lapels, shaken and told: “There: you played footsie with the Democrats over the years and now you have been kicked in the teeth. The evil that is Obama was clear from the outset of his political career. All that ‘seamless garment’ hogwash you spread stinks not of prudence, but of cowardice. Your actions have come back to haunt, not just you, but those under your spiritual care.” Any attempt to rally the Catholic people will be doomed by the fact that so many of them have become infected by the very liberalism which the bishops have winked at through the years. If you teach and reward disobedience, that is what you’ll get. Try corralling the flock now, excellencies, and find out what kind of shepherds you are.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 8:02 AM By Chuck Anziulewicz
If you are a Catholic who feels obligated of observe official Vatican doctrine on matters such as contraception, please feel free to conduct your own personal life accordingly. But please don’t presume to codify your church’s doctrine or your own personal religious beliefs into public policy. And if Catholic agencies choose to take public funding or take advantage of the insurance policies of non-Catholics, they need to respect the fact that non-Catholics may not share their views on contraception, not to mention a wide variety of other social issues. You want to feed at the public trough, you’d better be prepared to play by the rules.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 8:13 AM By Camille
The USCCB and all its state conferences bought into the gov’t goals when first they started taking tax dollars to expand their social services empire. One time back in the 70’s a nun told me that the church would be infusing its principles into the general society by working with the government, but it has been the other way around and the church leaders have been sucked into the humanistic approach to serving mamman, not God.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 8:16 AM By Larry
Chuck: But you have no problem with the architects of public policy trying to “codify” their “doctrine” or their “own personal religious beliefs into public policy,” and forcing everyone to cooperate in and with them, despite the fact that many don’t share those “doctrines” or “personal religious beliefs”?

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 8:21 AM By JMJ
All of the comments from Beth down to Tom Barbarie are wonderfully on the mark, it is so sad that the USCCB were so afraid of the back-lash from Ted Kennedy & all of his apostles, that they only “worked” on messing with the Mass instead of being concerned about the souls of their flock. There are still some bishops that don’t believe that by deliberately voting for politicians that are openly against the teachings of God & His Church, will be going to hell. I hope that they are right, as the Bishops will have to answer to God & explain (as if they could) why they are so confused about things such as Thy Shall Not Kill or Thy Shall Not Worship Strange gods. Sex and all that goes with it, outside of the marriage bed (as God gave us, not the filth of the devil) is a strange and very dangerous god indeed. Now, just how many of the news (Catholic & secular) media will pick up this release from the USCCB? Let’s face it, the world is not ready for the TRUTH yet. +JMJ+

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM By JMJ
I just submitted my comments when the one by Chuck came up. It is not only official Vatican doctrine as you implied, but, it is from the WORD OF GOD, which means that it is you that has to play by God’s rules instead of the false god: Obama. This is an attack on the freedom of all AMERICANS. Your point is moot and you should look for a real history book (before the 60’s) that will show you just what this country is all about. We do respect the fact that others don’t follow the Word of God, which is why we are unlike those that force their views on everybody, almost like what you are trying to do to us. +JMJ+

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 9:50 AM By Peggy
Nancy Pelosi, a “devout Catholic”, fully supports Pres. Obama in this and will join him in the fight against the Catholic Church. Isn’t it time for Ab. Niederauer to have “a little talk with Nancy…”?

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:02 AM By John F. Maguire
In the present circumstance, we have first to understand the emergent crisis-of-conscience provoked by the Obama Administration’s disdain for those who oppose abortion and disdain for pro-life institutions. This disdain can be compared to the political disdain for the consciences of Americans that had been displayed by those members of Congress who, in 1850, imposed, upon the American nation, the Fugitive Slave Act. “With the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, which required that escaped slaves anywhere in the USA be handed over to authorities, slavery was no longer just a Southern problem,” writes Nathaniel Philbrick. “All Americans, both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, were now legally bound to the institution of slavery.” Today the Obama Administration would bind all Americans, not just its Catholic opposition, to the institution of abortion. Cite: Nathaniel Philbrick, _Why Read *Moby-Dick*?_ (New York: Viking/Penguin Group, 2011).

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:31 AM By Abeca Christian
Not a good way to start off the morning, the beginning of the week, Obama’s picture is not something to be proud of.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:40 AM By goodcause
As the largest voting bloc in the country, whoever wins the Catholic vote wins the Presidency. Remember that when you vote in November. It’s been that way for decades. Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008; let’s show him we won’t taken for granted again.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:45 AM By sam
Plz don’t state falsehoods in our comments such as the “bishops’ tacit approval of electing “O”.” That is absolutely false and misleading. I have not idea where you get your info but not from the Catholic Church. You are actively participating in the spread of evil by such statements. Look to your own conscience and see the hidden sin there rather than others.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:55 AM By Hymie
A mere lovers’ quarrel. The bishops (in conference) and Obama will be back together in no time.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 11:10 AM By Paul
All Catholic Institutions should opt out of government money schemes. All at once. Impractical? What about Divine Providence, Oh, Jerusalem? (Matt. 23:37) Don’t talk it over. Just do it and watch Washington implode, Poof!

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 11:39 AM By Chuck Anziulewicz
There is a very simple solution to all this. Catholic schools and universities should enroll only Catholic students and Catholic staff. Catholic hospitals should treat only Catholic patients and hire only Catholic doctors and nurses. And none of these institutions should be taking taxpayer funding and resources. THEN they can conduct their business the way they wish.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 11:43 AM By Alice
Chuck: The Catholic hospitals, universities and charities don’t feed at the public trough, they provide the public trough. Where do you think the major hospital systems in the country came from? Not the tax payer…from Catholics who wanted to serve the Lord by serving our brothers. The laity, nuns, priests and volunteers gave their sweat and blood to found these institutions, never taking any profit from any of these hospitals. The govt. got involved years later as it began to regulate and permiate the systems. The medicare/medicade money and grants that go into these hospitals are used entirely for the care of patients, none who are ever refused care for any reason. It does not go into the Church coffers. We as Catholics have tried our best to work within the framework of govt. regulations and in most of our hospitals surpass those regs…however mandating that we have to pay for your contraception and abortions is infringing on our rights and conscience. [would you please buy the gas for my get away car when I rob your bank?] If only Obama had a hint of a conscience!

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 12:04 PM By Canisius
Wrong sam, it is not misleading the Bishops in this country did not oppose Obama so by default supportered him. They now realized that they were fooled by this man, BTW I will continue to see the fault in others and point it out,,, long live judgement

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 12:44 PM By Tom in San Jose
This is old news, but perhaps some folks like sam will benefit from seeing it again. Quote from EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo: “…The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops if not more voted for Obama. Because they thought the symbol of Obama would overcome racism and be a great healer and unity.”

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 1:31 PM By irishsmile
Hopefully now the USCCB as a body will begin to publicly declare in homilies all over America that ‘Catholic’ politicians who promote baby killing have excommunicated themselves and are not members in good standing of the church.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 3:58 PM By JLS
The Obama presidency has indeed made a huge and beneficial change to the racist attitudes, giving black people a wonderful transition in their sense of dignity. That is his only contribution however … and this same benefit could have been furthered with a pro-life black president instead of a pro-abortion one … where were the bishops on this point?

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 4:00 PM By JLS
Chuck, Catholicism cannot do what you suggest and remain Catholic either.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 4:11 PM By Elizabeth
Nancy, it is my understanding that AB Niederhauer has spoken to Nancy Pelosi at least twice…..and I would image when the she met with the Holy Father awhile back he did too…..with all due charity, it is now time for Nancy and Sebellius to be excommunicated formerally and in public, since they are SO PUBLIC about their disagreements with the Church…..They are TRULY OUT OF COMMUNION with the Roman Catholic Church. But, I also want to add….please keep praying for their conversion of heart and mind!!!!

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 4:37 PM By Becky
Racism (with the exception of a few inconsequential bigots is no longer part of the USA landscape). We have a black US Supreme Court Justice, and a black Secretary of State both prior to Obama. Voting for Obama on this premise is merely an EXCUSE for the mortal sin of voting for a known supporter of baby-killing based upon his own vote record at State and Federal levels. We are being punished for mortal sins.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 5:08 PM By Life Lady
If you voted for this man in the previous election, you now have an opportunity to make an about face and to vote for Rick Santorum for president. If we truly live our faith, then we must take charge of those things that we truly can control, which is where to put the mark on our preferred candidate. Romney has already said he will not (WILL NOT) repeal the abomination that is ObamaCare. Gingrich, who knows? I haven’t heard him say anything like he would like to work to see it go. Bachman and Santorum were the only two, honest candidates, who indicated they would work to repeal ObamaCare. If you voted for Obama in the last election, please turn yourself around and vote for the truly pro-life candidate left, Rick Santorum. Support him with your money, and let him know we stand behind him. If we do anything else, we will all be paying for this outrageous turn from the present administration, one way or another.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 5:32 PM By Larry
“Catholic schools and universities should enroll only Catholic students and Catholic staff. Catholic hospitals should treat only Catholic patients and hire only Catholic doctors and nurses.” Never, Chuck! You don’t require a hungry man to accept Baptism and the Nicene creed before you give him something to eat–a thirsty man to drink–a gravely ill man emergency treatment–a poor man an education to help him improve his station in life, and I could go on and on. That’s not what we’re about. Can you imagine what they’d say about us if we decided from now on we would perform our corporeal works of mercy only for Catholics? And what’s worse–they would be right.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 5:51 PM By Miguel
Fork tongued devils. How dare you interfere in our freedom to worship. You use our tax money to kill babies, now you expect us kill babies with our own collections. Modern persecution and the media is asleep at the wheel.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 6:03 PM By John Cullen
Tom in San Jose (7:23 AM) has it exactly right. As it gets close to election time Obama will suddenly grant a waiver/exemption to Catholic and other religious institutions, and he’ll be a hero again to those Catholics (laity, clergy, and religious) who voted for him the first time. The more I think about this the more I think it may have been planned this way in advance.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 7:06 PM By Allan W
Catholics voted for Obama in record numbers. The bishops did nothing to dissuade them. Many bishops voted for Obama. Now the USCCB is whining that Obama betrayed them. Did they not know that abortion is the sacred cow of the Democrat Party? Of course they did. they knew and did nothing to defeat this evil. Liberal bishops are more of a problem than Obama. Wake up people.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 8:02 PM By k
kaves 1, the insurance companies must pay for it. No co-pays are allowed. Employers who pay their employees premiums as a benefit would then be purchasing contaception coverage.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:19 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Irishsmile, Dream On! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:19 PM By Jeff
The Catholic Bishops elected Obama through their lack of teaching against pro-abortion canditates. As a result the Catholic vote pushed Obama past McCain. The Bishops elected Obama now it’s time for them to get rid of him in November by speaking out publically and often to Catholics about the evils of voting for pro-abortion candidates at all levels of government.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 10:24 PM By Jeff
Every Bishop who has not publically denounced by name pro-choice Catholic politicians in their diocese are responsible for this tragety. In the diocese of Portland, OR AB John Vlazney is one who will not denounce Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Posted Monday, February 06, 2012 11:42 PM By bill force
B. Hussein O’s declaring war on the Catholic Church is the equivalent of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. He has awakened a sleeping giant.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:26 AM By Doug Indeap
Notwithstanding wild cries to the contrary, THE HEALTH CARE LAW DOES NOT FORCE EMPLOYERS TO ACT CONTRARY TO THEIR BELIEFS–unless one supposes the employers’ religion forbids even payment of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion). In keeping with the law, those with conscientious objections to providing their employees with qualifying health plans may decline to provide any health plans and pay an assessment instead or, alternatively, provide plans that do not qualify (e.g., without provisions they dislike) and pay lower assessments. Questions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are entirely real, but not new. The courts have confronted such issues and have generally ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, fraud, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Were it otherwise and people could opt out of this or that law with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:34 AM By JLS
O has made this move in the run for November elections, and it likely is a well worked out and planned move to gain votes. Since he would not want to drive away Catholic votes, then my guess is that there is a lot more to this move than immediately meets the eye.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:34 AM By Juergensen
Who is the USCCB to complain that anything is “false and misleading”? Its own “Faithful Citizenship” is false and misleading. In 2004, the Catholic Church issued “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” in which the Church stated its teaching that a Catholic can morally vote for an abortionist politician such as Obama only in “the presence of proportionate reasons.” Then, in 2007, the USCCB issued the voting guide “Faithful Citizenship,” which purported to guide Catholics in voting. In that document, however, the USCCB entirely failed to mention the Church teaching on “proportionate reasons” (“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” 2004). The reason for this glaring omission by the USCCB is obvious: there can never be “proportionate reasons” to the annual slaughter of 1.2 million babies in the womb, and so there can never be “proportionate reasons” to vote for Obama. The USCCB knew this. And, so, in drafting “Faithful Citizenship,” the USCCB deliberately left out the Church teaching on “proportionate reasons” (USCCB deliberation records show this) and replaced that Church teaching with a USCCB-invented”teaching” that allows Catholics to vote for an abortionist politician such as Obama if the Catholic merely “intends” not to support abortion (Sec. 34, “Faithful Citizenship”). Incredibly, this USCCB “teaching” entirely disregards and does not require “the presence of proportionate reasons,” which is a Church requirement! (“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” 2004). This false and misleading “teaching” from the USCCB is why Bishop Joseph Martino stated: “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB does not speak for me.” Wise counsel from a man of the Church.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:39 AM By JLS
Wrong, Doug I.; the tyranny consists of manipulating people through a religious device. Your post does the same thing by likening faith in God to faith in the environment among other things. Your confusion of religion with government bespeaks the religious condition known as Americanism, a kind of sycretism of various religions and secular government.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:48 AM By Juergensen
And, please, do not be beguiled by the duplicitous peddlers of disinformation on this forum, who in response to the facts laid out in my post above [February 07, 2012 5:34] will try to mislead you with the lie that in 2011 the USCCB added an “Introductory Note” to “Faithful Citizenship” that “changed” Section 34. The “Introductory Note” did not change a single word in Section 34, or a single word anywhere else in the text of “Faithful Citizenship” for that matter. Indeed, the 2011 “Introductory Note” itself acknowledges that the USCCB was simply re-issuing the original 2007 statement, stating: “THIS STATEMENT [WAS] ADOPTED BY THE BODY OF BISHOPS IN 2007.” As such, the statement remains intact and as “false and misleading” as ever.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:05 AM By Amy
WAKE UP AMERICA. Everyone should wake up and realize that if the Obama White House can mandate this, they can mandate anything. This is only the beginning. Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jew or Buddhist, Mr. Obama will shortly be telling you what to believe, what you can practice and how you will be paying for it. It is just around the corner. If you do not believe this, read history and you will get a wake up call.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:05 AM By Dave M.
Doug I, there are significant financial penalties that employers will be forced to pay to the government if they do not follow the “Law according to Obama” and his “Religion of RELATIVISM and SECULAR FUNDAMENTALISM”. OBAMA has no reguard for the US Constitution, since he is not supposed to be a lawmaker, but an Administrator.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:33 AM By Juergensen
The Church is the Body of Christ (CCC 1368). Therefore, the attack on the Church by Obama is an attack on Christ Himself, making Obama an antichrist, one of “many antichrists [who] have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). What does this say of those who voted for Obama? Worse, what does this say of those who strive diligently with forked tongues to mislead others into voting for Obama?

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:49 AM By JMJ
I noticed that Doug Indeap gave this same bunch of saying a lot without saying a thing message on The NCR site. Must be one of those college graduates that have been feed nothing but Obama type lies and now, here he is spreading garbage. His first line, which doesn’t need to be quoted as it is just completely false, will give everyone a clue about him. Maybe someday when he wakes up from his coma & finds that his freedom also has been taken away from him, he won’t be so quick to spread his useless opinions around. Obama, just as Hilary, wants to eliminate all private insurance & make the insurance companies part of Obama’s world to control, love & cherish. STOP OBAMANISM, NOW!!! +JMJ+

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:28 AM By John F. Maguire
If something is not in a text VERBATIM, that does not mean that it is missing from the text tout court; implicit presence is a real possibility and not infrequently an actuality. ~ When, Mr. Juergensen, you took Archbishop Gomez to task for not using the phrase *intrinsic evil* VERBATIM, you didn’t bother to check to see if the sense of that phrase was present implicitly or not. Likewise, when now you take the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ voting-ethics document to task for not including Cardinal Ratzinger’s formulation (“presence of proportionate reasons”) VERBATIM you make the same mistake: you don’t bother to check whether nonetheless the sense of the phrase (here “presence of proportionate reasons”) nonetheless abides in the USCCB’s voting-ethics document. Moreover, since the pros-and-cons of voting for Candidate X as against the pros-and-cons of voting for his opponent Candidate Y always already involves proportionate reasoning, the very notion of considerred, conscientious voting implies the notion of the presence of proportionate reasons.

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:28 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Doug Indeap, 12:26 AM, I see you are now trying to spread your insanity to this CCC Site as you have on others, so I will answer you the same way I answered you on other Sites: you would probably like “Taquiya” the Moslem practice of forced taxation on any one who does not want to worship their false prophet and his false teachings so that their heads will not be cut off because that is exactly what you appear to be supporting in this! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:19 PM By Catherine
God Bless Juergensen! Excellent post on Feb, 07, 8:33 AM!! Don’t worry Juergensen, we are not beguiled by those who were beguiled by Douglas Kmiec. Juergensen,Did you happen to read Hugh Hewitt’s Feb. 2, 2012 Memo to Catholic Bishops. It is a must read. I am sure you know that Hugh Hewitt is a fallen away Catholic. A friend of mine told me today that a close Catholic friend of hers once called the Hugh Hewitt show and reminded Hugh that he had abandoned Christ by abandoning the Blessed Sacrament. Hugh Hewitt immediately hung up on this caller. The caller wrote a letter and Hugh Hewitt responded and admitted he was wrong to hang up. How unbelievable is it when you have a fallen away Catholic leading a band march to the USCCB?

Posted Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:27 PM By Abeca Christian
I agree with the Post of Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:33 AM By Juergensen. You have expressed what deep sentiments I have in regards to Mr, Obama. I continue to pray for Mr. Obama but every time I do, I can only think of that wonderful scripture that warns us about wasting our pearls. But I do recall a wonderful priest say that we are still obliged to pray with our hearts, with love for our enemies, for our prayers will not go in vein, even if they reject the graces that come from our genuine prayers done in love and concern for our brethren, that they will not go to waste, they will be dispensed else where to those who will benefit greatly from them who are truly open to embracing them. So if Mr. Obama does not have a heart of conversion, then I pray that our prayers and blessings will go to his children and his wife or anyone else open to God’s love and mercy! God have mercy!

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:04 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Catherine, I’m not questioning the story you were told about Hugh Hewitt, but I have been given to understand that Hugh Hewitt is a fully participating member of the faithful laity, or have you heard otherwise? By the way, moments ago I received an e-mail from Thomas Aquinas College indicating that Hugh Hewitt will be broadcast on the radio for 3 hours this coming Friday interviewing the new president of TAC, members of the teaching faculty, and various students.

Posted Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:18 PM By Robin
This is what happens whenCatholics disobey Church teachings, when Bishops and clergy are defiant of Church teachings. Any Catholic , clergy, Bishop or layity who does not live according to the teachings of Our Holy Mother Church is NOT a true Catholic but an apostate heretic. Obama is creating an America where right is wrong and wrong is right in an attempt to destroy the children and young people. This will aid him in his drowning of America into Communism and the complete destruction of freedom.

Posted Friday, February 10, 2012 10:37 PM By Abeca Christian
Vanity, pride etc are a huge problem, those a few root reason why there is so much disobedience.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:35 PM By Joseph
Obama’s so-called “accomodation” is nothing more than an accounting “shell game.” Insurance companies do not pay premiums. They will simply pass on the cost of Obama’s unfunded mandate to their policyholders, including Christian employers.

Posted Saturday, February 11, 2012 2:39 PM By JLS
The bishops actually said this today, what Joseph’s post says.