Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

On the so-called 'Accomodation' to Catholics by Obama

The following is the most concise information out there that I have come across on the internet re: the Obama Regime's blatant attempt to violate the stated purpose (as per Thomas Jefferson) of the 1st Amendment by dictating to private, religious organizations that they have to provide free abortifacients (including the 5 day after pill) for their employees.

It seems that the president pulled back a bit last Friday when he announced that...

"Women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -- no matter where they work," Obama said. But, he added, "religious organizations won't have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly."

No, instead the onus would fall on insurance companies to provide these abortifacients "free" of charge. Brian Burch over at CatholicVote.org mirrored my sentiments when I heard the announcement by Obama.

"Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy ."

Indeed, what assurances would the organization in question have that such morally objectionable items are not provided with that organizations dollars through some sort of clever accounting trick?

But the key question here is why? Why is this regime so intent on providing these services? I doubt that it's for the benefit of women because I don't see this administration lobbying for other such initiatives for women's health ranging from screening for heart disease or types of cancer. So why the emphasis on contraception/abortifacients at this time? Father Dwight Longenecker provides an interesting explanation that he recently heard that can possibly shed some light on the administration's regime's mindset...

"I heard an interesting slant on the HHS Mandate debate on the radio this morning. The commentator noted that left wing journalist and former Clinton White House aide, George Stephanapoulos, in one of the primary debates raised the question of whether states had the right to ban contraception. Romney took the question and was flabbergasted. "No one is suggesting that anyone bans contraception! What's the point of this question?"

The point of the question is this: The Left realize they've lost the debate on abortion. Therefore they are moving the goalposts and deliberately making the debate about contraception. No one could possibly be against contraception right? I mean, everybody uses contraception. However, more and more people are finding abortion to be unpleasant, and are turning away from it in disgust. Although they pretend to ignore it, they see that the March for Life and the pro life cause is young, is growing and becoming impossible to ignore.

So, hey presto, we don't talk about "abortion" any more, but we talk about "preventative health services"--which mark my words--will not only include drugs that cause abortions, but eventually surgical abortions as well. These "preventative women's health services" will all be lumped together and billed as "contraceptives" and nobody can possibly be against contraceptives--right?"

Kudos for Father Longenecker for speaking the truth! I thought the following analysis from Liza Fabrio was quite succinct and thus I will give her the last word on this discussion...

"When we speak of sex this does not, of course, refer to what was once known as conjugal love; that which in an ordered society is a beneficial and great moral good. No, the modern conception of sex is that exercise of bodily functions that exists only for the use of human beings by other human beings solely as instruments of physical pleasure; often perversely so.

This desire for unfettered access to sex is probably one of the greatest reasons for this country's unfortunate descent into the realms of atheism and agnosticism. "A loving God would never be against___" -- fill in the blank with "hookups" or any number of sexual deviations. After all, a creator who did not intend for our bodies to engage in rampant and random sex cannot really be worthy of worship, can he?

This has resulted in the loss of the idea that humanity was blessed with a divine gift which, in our manner of reproduction, differentiates man from beast.

No comments: