Three vitally important news stories have appeared in Christian Post, a newsdaily online that belongs to the publication members of the Evangelical Press Association (and is thus assumedly in conformity with its ethical guidelines for Chrsitian news-media). The news source is very much a newshorse, and in the current Obamacare stealth-rules for employers a moment has come when this news horse is keeping up-to-date on the fast-breaking developments of the tidal wave of adverse reaction, whether a majority, or even a majority of Evangelicals or Catholics remains to be seen. The first story centers upon the figure of a political scientist of reformational philosophical background, Dr Stephen Monsma.
Monsma has studied, as a political science professor, and practiced, as a Michigan state government representative, American government for over 40 years. Recently, as senior research fellow at The Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity andPolitics at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Mich., and a fellow at the Center for Public Justice, Monsma has turned his attention to the study of faith-based organizations. — CP (Feb17,2k12)
Dr Monsma's latest book appeared this year under the title,
Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-based organizations in a democratic society. It had been written prior to the onslawt of the birth control mandate's headlines. Monsma challenges the "underlying assumptions" of the Obama practice of politics with which many, perhaps most, voting Americans agree.
The crucial [assumption] is that religion is something that takes place in churches, synagogues, mosques, or in private activities, such as devotional reading or prayer, in the home. That leaves out a host of religiously based organizations that are involved in health care, education, other social services, which then are not seen as being truly religious organizations, and, therefore, they can be forced to engage in practices that go against their beliefs without really, supposedly, violating their religious consciences.
Against that political-moral view of the inherent religious neutrality of institutions functioning outside of the societal spheres of church and home Monsma offers the Obama régime and the American voting public a real alternative
:
I think the beginning point is to recognize that faith-based organizations engag[ing] in education, health care, and social services [for instance] are truly religious organizations by which individuals are living out their religious faith and therefore they are deserving of the protection based on religious freedom rights.
The CP article, by Napp Nazworth, proceeds in question-and-answer form. The interview proceeds with systematic delineations of government support for any proportion of a committed organization's when its program/s contribute to the common good, but not in any such activities that woud involve
direct proselytization or worship activities. "But otherwise, if the organization is providing a public good, helping to solve problems in society, they should be able to continue to do so in the manner that has helped them to be successful in the past. Monsma is especially firm when he insists that "Certainly, restrictions should not include forcing that faith-based organization to hire persons who are not in religious agreement with them, which would virtually destroy that organization as a religiously-based organization."
Read more ... click on the t+mstamp below ...
CP: What do you think of President Obama's revised proposal on the birth control mandate in which he said that faith-based groups will not be required to pay for birth control coverage but insurance companies will have to provide it to their employees for free?
Monsma: I think it was a step in the right direction, but I don't think it goes nearly far enough. There's a couple of problems. One, the exact language of which faith-based organizations will not be included has yet to be worked out. The old saying is, "the devil is in the details," and until that language is worked out, we need to be a little skeptical whether it will go far enough.
My second problem is that, if the insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage "free of charge," the cost of that is likely to show up in the premiums they charge the faith-based groups. Thus, indirectly, one could argue, they are still being asked to subsidize coverage, which, for some faith-based organizations, goes directly against their religious beliefs.
CP: The Obama administration is arguing that premiums will not increase because birth control offered for free will reduce pregnancies and health care for a pregnant woman costs more than health care for a non-pregnant woman.
Monsma: They do make that claim, but if this were really the case you would think that all insurance companies would voluntarily offer contraceptive coverage in order to save money. So, I'm a bit skeptical whether it will really work out so simply and neatly in practice.
Concluding, Monsma says, "
The issue is not whether you or I personally agree with the Catholic position on contraceptives. As a Protestant, I feel the issue is much more important and goes deeper than simply that. It's a matter of religious freedom rights and if the religious freedom rights of some religious traditions are violated, the religious freedom rights of all faith-based organizations would be put in danger."
I urge you read the whole article "
Birth control mandate is about religious freedom, scholar says," and as soon as possible buy Prof. Monsma's book,
Pluralism and Freedom.
The second CP article is entitled, "
Catholic Health Association work on HHS mandate seen by some as 'scandal'," by Myles Collier (Feb14,2k12).
With new guidelines set forth for the contraception mandate, news is spreading that one Catholic organization's work and support of the controversial mandate has been seen by some as scandalous.
The Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama notified a few people before he gave his speech regarding the contraception mandate last Friday.Those on the presidential call list were Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association and Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The situation arose after both the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood offered support and praise for the measure long before most had even known about the new guidelines for the mandate. I think it's a scandal that [CHA's] statement mirrored that of Planned Parenthood … Christian prudence demands a much higher threshold … especially given the clear attack on religious freedom and the clear attack on the Catholic Church inherent in this decision," John Brehany, executive director of the Catholic Medical Association... .
Again,
refWrite urges you to read the entire article. What stands out is the naïvté of the Catholic Health Association and its leader, Sister Carol Keehan. She seems to be one of those dipsy-doodle nuns who are constantly fooled and re-fooled by the rhetoric of activistic Leftism. They are an old story in America, trading on the female sensibility that is proper to religous orders of women and indeed proper to the very idea of sisterhood. But her awkwardness as a disciplined member and leader of the Roman Catholic communion is not in accordance with the positions of the Catholic Hospital Association nor especially the Catholic Medical Society.
CSNnews.com (Feb17,2k12) by Denise J. Hunnel, MD
Contraception Mandate's Authors Gave $116,500 To Pro-Abortion Candidates And Groups, Nothing To Pro-Lifers
It is time to do some fact checking about President Obama’s “compromise” on attacking religious liberty.
First of all, telling Catholics to just close their eyes and keep paying their insurance premiums that will ultimately cover morally objectionable services is not addressing respect for conscience and religious liberty. No matter how you spin it, Catholic institutions will be paying for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. The end result is no different than the original Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, since insurance companies are not going to just throw these services in for free.
President Obama also erroneously claims that access to these services is in the interest of women’s health, although none of these services are necessary to prevent or cure a disease or pathological medical condition. Instead, they take a perfectly healthy reproductive system and render it dysfunctional and sterile. Hormonal contraceptives are also associated with increased blood pressure, blood clots and an increased risk for breast cancer. In addition, hormonal contraceptives have been shown to double the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. No medical association recommends the use of hormonal contraceptives as routine preventive care for healthy women. They are only used for the disruption of normal fertility.
In light of these facts, it becomes difficult to argue that the use of contraception, sterilization and abortion inducing drugs are required preventive medicine. These are purely elective treatments that prevent the natural and healthy consequences of a certain lifestyle choice. Pro-choice advocates demand that the Catholic Church “stay out of the bedroom,” then they demand that the Church pick up the tab for what happens in the bedroom.
How did these supposedly “necessary” services get included as part of the mandated “preventive care” called for under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare?
The HHS commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to draw up a list of preventive services that should be covered. There is strong evidence that the committee charged with this was ideologically biased with direct ties to the abortion industry. As HLI America National Director Arland Nichols reveals in his exposition of bias within the IOM, several committee members had strong ties to Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. In fact, 11 of the 15 IOM committee members who supported the measure collectively contributed $116,500 to pro-choice organizations and political candidates, and there is no evidence that any of them had ever contributed to a pro-life candidate or organization.
Dr. Anthony Lo Sasso was the only member of the IOM committee to dissent from the recommendation, and he has strongly criticized the IOM’s methodology in coming up with the controversial recommendations.
“The committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition,” wrote Dr. Lo Sasso.Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy. An abiding principle in the evaluation of the evidence and the recommendations put forth as a consequence should be transparency and strict objectivity, but the committee failed to demonstrate these principles in the report.
The IOM proceedings were more akin to a kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome; the outcome in this case being the mandated inclusion of contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients in all insurance policies. While their recommendations were presented with the supposed authority of “science,” the actual science employed in the report is threadbare. As Nichols put it in his devastating article, instead of an objective scientific evaluation to seek the best preventive health care options for all Americans, we received “Planned Parenthood ideology.”
The 99 Percent?
Finally, it is important to address the misleading statistics that President Obama and his administration are touting to support the HHS mandate. Over and over the Obama administration declares that 99% of all American women have used contraception at some point in their lives. This comes from a 2010 CDC report, Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982-2008. Ironically, this 99% figure includes the women who use simple periodic abstinence as well as more sophisticated Natural Family Planning methods. It also reflects the use of contraception at any point during the reproductive years and not the percentage of women currently using contraception. This statistic is meant to paint contraceptive use as universal and therefore essential. Though it is impossible to know exact numbers, the percentage of women desiring chemical or surgical contraception and abortion services at any given time is certainly far less than 99%.
President Obama is not really interested in supporting those who seek to faithfully live their moral and religious principles. Instead, President Obama is merely interested in receiving cover from his Catholic political allies and protecting his liberal base in this election year. As the New York Times reports, he sought the counsel of Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association as well as the approval of Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, in looking for the so-called “compromise.” Sr. Keehan was criticized by Cardinal George, then president of the USCCB, for her failure to adequately consider Catholic teaching on life issues in her support for Obamacare. President Obama did not consult with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) at all when devising this revised HHS mandate.
Fortunately, the USCCB and other conscientious objectors have not been fooled by this charade of accommodation. The USCCB issued a statement rejecting this version of the mandate as “completely unacceptable” and called all Catholics to vigorously support legislative action to rescind this mandate and to provide unequivocal protection of religious liberty. Likewise, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Catholic Medical Association, and dozens of scholars and prominent legal experts have voiced their opposition to this continued assault on religious liberty.This revised mandate is an empty gesture which represents no substantial progress towards protecting the rights of religious institutions or individuals to freely practice their faith. As so many religious leaders have stated, Americans cannot and should not comply with this unjust mandate, and we must stand firm in our commitment to moral principles, and to the defense of religious liberty.
What these facts, marshalled by Dr Hunnell, display is that Obama is adept at what we all have come to know as "Chicago politics," and that he has developed a fifth-column among Catholic institutional élites to undermine the Magisterial authority of the "consistent ethic of life" that is a h+er mandate for Catholic faithful in doctrine and morals than even President Barack Obama has been granted by the Alm+ty.
I don't believe in the Roman Catholic Church's teaching against all abortions, in every case. Nor do I believe in forcing a woman to give birth to her baby now in her womb; she is sovereign over the sphere of her womb and reproduction. If it be killing, then the woman shoud be granted the r+t to kill the pre-born in her womb, for wharever reason/s she may have. At the same time, the government shoud constrain the abortion industry, in which many persons and doctors have a vested interest, and from which they profit by conditioning the woman's response to her options. But I am no more infallible than is the Pope and the atheist declaimer down the street or on the university faculty. There is no lack of supply of condoms along that street or in the university dorm rooms. Everyone in America has the individual freedom of access to condoms, so there is little problem of inaccesibility if a woman or girl wants a condom to place on her man's or boyfriend's aroused rod. The problems chiefly are incest, rape, congenital defects, and HIV/AIDS.
But no religious institution nor any insurance company (whether for-profit or not) shoud be either compelled or denied the r+t to finance a pre-born child's birth, nor denied the r+t to refuse to do so. I woud contribute my two cents, joining even with pro-abortion feminists and non-feminists, to finance houses of refuge for women who want to get away from the pressures of husbands, lovers, fathers, mothers, siblings, other relatives and friends to make up their minds meditatively whether to proceed with the life or death of the living human being who is presently pre-born in her womb. But I woud not give a cent to finance an actual abortion, or a medical-doctor abortionist, or Planned Paraenthood's typical approach to women in distress about whether to continue a pregnancy. The government shoud be resisted by acts of civil disobedience when it tries to take money from any source for the purpose of abortion. It is none of the state's calling or responsiblity to fund abortions or finance "authorities" to coerce her one way or another. And the heretical Sister Keehan shoud come to her Catholic senses, instead of showing herself to be a totalitarian, at odds with a woman's sphere-sovereignty and responsiblity in regard to condoms or other means of contraception or abortion. So shoud the Pope, the Magisterium altogether, instead of falling back on the Aristotelian biotistic ethics into which he tries to lock all Catholic women. Protestant Christians shoud refuse to bow before Aristotelian Scholasticism and its rank bioticism. Protestant Christians shoud be free to pass out condoms galore to those who want them so as not to conceive a child in an untimely way. They shoud also be free not to do so.
This radically Christian sphere-sovereignty approach woud not altogether rule out the courts. The state and, if necessary, the Federal court system shoud be ready hear petitions from women and girls who want protection from al lhose who m+t intend to coerce them, for or against bringing to term the life that presently is wihtin them, and over who they have sphere sovereignty and penultimate authority under God.
— Lawt, refWrite Frontpage juridics columnist
general editor, refWrite Frontpage
More index of tags: HunnelDrDenise, DolanCrdnlTimothy, Planned Parenthood, Catholic Medical Association, Catholic Hospital Association, Health and Human ServicesUSAgovt, InstituteOfMedicine(leftist), LoSassoDrAnthony, MonsmaDrStephen, statisticsMisleading, CDC2k10report, USCathBishops, ConsistentEthicofLife, Aristotelian bioticism, Scholasticism, Protestants, sphere sovereignty, women, girls, judges, houses of refuge,
No comments:
Post a Comment