Ignite the Pulpit
Catholic compromise unsatisfactory
The “Catholic compromise” on the “contraceptive mandate” does not satisfy Catholic and other opponents. Nor should it: it is a means for “death by demography.” The proponents’ own words betray their intent.
Catholic compromise still angers bishops
The so-called Catholic compromise merely shifts the costs from a given employer to his insurer. But such cost shifting never works. It only hides the cost. The insurer will now raise premiums for everyone, and won’t list the cost of giving out birth-control pills (or other contraceptive drugs or devices) to patients free-of-charge.
America’s Catholic bishops know this. Since the man now holding office as President announced the Catholic compromise, the bishops have answered him: Rescind the contraceptive mandate. They say that it
continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.
Meaning that the government tries to tell churches, and the charities they run, what to do. The money was never the issue. The issue is that the government is telling these charities to enable sin.
We will therefore continue – with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency – our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government.
Meaning that the bishops will try to:
- Have Congress pass a law against the contraceptive mandate, and/or:
- Sue the government, saying that the contraceptive mandate violates their “free exercise of religion.”
(The bishops might want to contact Nick Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr, who sued the government nearly a year and a half ago over the health care reform bill. Among other things, their suit says that the new law favors some religions over others. In related news, Purpura told CNAV this morning that he still has heard no word from the Supreme Court since he re-argued his case, Purpura v. Sebelius, Docket Number 11-7275.)
Frank York (Christian Response Alerts) wrote that “Obama rules as a tyrant” and called the Catholic compromise a “half measure.”
Catholics aren’t the only ones to complain. Pastor Alan B. Brown of Parsippany Baptist Church (Parsippany, NJ) shared with CNAV yesterday his worry that
the next thing you know, they’ll be telling us to fund abortions. And that would take it to an entirely new level.
Death by demography
Barack H. Obama. Photo: Pete Souza, January 13, 2009
The problem might already be at a “new level.” At least two Members of Congress have called the contraceptive mandate “preventive medicine.” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said it last week. And Representative Gwendolynne Moore (D-WI) said this:
The National Institute of Health has said that it is a danger to women’s health and safety of their families, that for 30 years, to be exposed to the prospects of pregnancy.
That quote comes from The Daily Caller. Rush Limbaugh picked it up. He then inferred the obvious: Representative Moore, like Senator Boxer before her, just said that pregnancy is a disease. Worse yet, she said that when a woman falls pregnant, she can put the whole family at risk. (For what? She doesn’t say.)
That way lies death by demography. The United States is already in 135th or 136th place in crude birth rate, depending on whether one asks the UN or the CIA. (The crude birth rate is either 13.7 or 13.83 births per thousand person-years.) The United States fertility rate (births per woman of childbearing age) now stands at 2.05, less than the 2.1 needed to replace the occasional child who dies before he or she becomes an adult. So even if one grants the premise that the government ought to interfere with childbearing, government should not discourage childbearing. The contraceptive mandate does exactly this.
(Remember: Barbara Boxer once said that a newborn isn’t a person until the mother brings him or her home.)
Other objections
The contraceptive mandate has two other things wrong with it:
- The birth control pill is bad medicine. It puts women at risk for cancer, bone thinning, fatal blood clotting, muscle loss, and heart disease. Using it for a long time can cause sexual problems. A woman who takes it all the time might even choose to marry someone with whom she is less likely to have children. (And when she stops using the pill, she might find that she married the wrong man, but never really know why.)
- The Catholic compromise tries to shift cost to the insurance company. But what if the charity involved self-insures? The compromise does nothing for them. (And Barack H. Obama should have known this ahead of time, given the experience of his alleged home State of Hawaii.)
An employer need not have a religious affiliation, or even a religious reason, not to give his employees something he thinks is bad, for them or for society. Government usually tells people not to do something, when that something can hurt others. Now the government is telling people to do something, something that puts women at risk (whether they know it or not) and threatens to kill our society (even if slowly).
Thus the Catholic compromise is no compromise at all. It pleases only those who know that it changes nothing, or think it changes something when it doesn’t.
Related:
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Clergy3 days agoFaith alone will save the country
-
Civilization1 day agoElon Musk, Big Game RINO Hunter
-
Civilization4 days agoFreewheeling Transparency: Trump Holds First Post-Election News Conference
-
Civilization4 days agoDr. Jay Bhattacharya Will Rebuild Trust in Public Health
-
Civilization2 days agoLegacy media don’t get it
-
Civilization4 days agoWhat About Consequences? Are Democrats Immune?
-
Executive2 days agoWaste of the Day: Mismanagement Plagues $50 Billion Opioid Settlement
-
Civilization2 days agoA Sometimes-Squabbling Conservative Constellation Gathers at Charlie Kirk Invitation
What Moore actually said:
“…Not allowing the Church to stand on its bully pulpit and separate women from critical, vital health care needs. The National Institute of Health has said it is a danger [IT = THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHURCH] to women’s health and (the) safety of their families, that for 30 years to be exposed to the prospects in pregnancy.
Deceitful of you to leave out the first half of her statement. Her grammar is mangled a bit, but quite obviously she was not equating pregnancy with a disease in itself, but saying that women not having the option is the danger and if a woman does not want to carry a baby from the moment of conception to full-term we as a moral society must give her that option; I don’t know where she got “30 years” from, but on a very simple level she is deriding the Church having control over the physical domain of women and, by extension, their lives. Her words make no generalized point about pregnancy because contrary to what you might think it is not a black and white moral situation.
Your so-called context, far from making Representative Moore’s remarks more acceptable, only makes them worse. To talk of “exposure to the prospects in pregnancy” is to treat pregnancy like a disease. And “critical, vital health needs”? Obviously you failed to follow the links that clearly show that that so-called medicine is bad medicine.
“To talk of “exposure to the prospects in pregnancy” is to treat pregnancy like a disease.”
Not at all. It treats pregnancy like a choice to be made with the consideration that it could A) Place a burden on a woman that she is unable to accept, for any reason (economic, probably, or maybe she knows she would be unable to love or care for the life properly) B) Bring a child into a life of economic or emotional hardship. Your Christian view of new life as a “miracle” to be treated with absolute reverence is contrary to everything we know about nature (having a baby isn’t a miracle, it’s as biologically functional as digesting food into waste) and society (more children does not ease or improve the quality of life for a population.)
Besides, there is a big difference between someone saying “Pregnancy is a disease” and someone saying “Pregnancy can be a very difficult thing” while you willfully misinterpret that latter statement to suit your ideological needs. Kind of like if you were to take my analogy between pregnancy and digestion to read “Having a baby is like taking a dump.”
This just another of many areas this administration has overstepped Constitutional authority.
The use of birth conrol or any contreceptive is a personal choice by the individual not a collective right granted by any governmental body. If a person is ingauging in a lifestyle that requires the use of these drugs etc they and they alone are responsible for the cost.
The very essence of [good] politics is to provide decent and moral policy and practice for the citizenry, – not to be an end in itself, attempting to take the place of an individual’s conscience and play God. Yet, [US] government under the Obama mandate thinks it knows best for American women. Essentially it takes on a big brother role to encourage a minimal population growth, rate. I view this latest government intrusion upon 1st Amendment personal choice, to implement another piece in its eugenic program. At present, the Obama Administration thoroughly supports Roe v. Wade, partial birth abortion and sex offenses against the most innocent of our American citizenry:
“The President of the United States: A Sex Offender? – Why Obama’s support of the abortion industry is the worst molestation of youth:”
……..Applying the definition of a sex offender to those who hide their (genocide) crimes against humanity by “serving” in political office:
What greater sexual offense can there be against individuals than the destruction of their sexual identity from the very beginnings of their innocent lives, by the total destruction and elimination of those very lives? Yet, umpteen politicians continue to function as sex offender predators, committing the most egregious and heinous of sex crimes – that being the total annihilation of their victims. Sexual molestations are committed by virtue of individual sexual identities being totally eliminated from present and future populations vis-a-vis the abortion industry process.
Consequently, I submit that our USA President is “Chief Sex Offender,” by virtue of him holding the highest political office in the nation. His past and present record in support of unrestricted, unnecessary, abortions, partial birth abortions and even infanticide (of those babies, surviving abortions), automatically, (sadly and pathetically) make him not only responsible, but accountable for multiple crimes against humanity and their (would be) posterity……
link to thechristianmessage.org
Also, to substantiate the aforementioned, think of the family destroying government this way:
“Abortion genocide:”
“Abortion genocide is also the population decimation of future generations: Abortion genocide not only ends the life of the immediate pre-born target, but has shocking implications. Abortion affects posterity — future generations of potential life that would have been a direct result of the first life, snuffed out…..”
link to conservapedia.com
“Hate-monger:”
…..Hate-mongering can take the form of policy, agenda and support for the destruction of pre-born life – and posterity. Current day, example: …….Hitler did not personally gas and load bodies into Nazi oven chambers. Neither does Obama poke and mutilate pre-born babies as they are in their mother’s protective wombs and also those babies imminently about to be born. But he is, as guilty of hate-mongering as Hitler, by virtue of his leadership role in support of the continuing abortion genocide.”
link to conservapedia.com
All this [above] is not a wholesome, godly picture. I think that if a person is honest, he would have to conclude that, based upon the aforementioned, our occupant within the White House, is not doing what is best for America. He is not acting in good moral fashion. Hence, Obama is not a [good] man, but rather a monster.
I think the government should stay out of all of this reproductive health stuff. Let a person decide if he/she wants to use birth control; let her decide if she wants an abortion. We just need more conservatives in office to keep the government out of our lives. Less governmental control and more personal control!
“Let a person decide if he/she wants to use birth control”
Actually that’s exactly what the government’s trying to do; let a PERSON decide, rather than let her employer apply pressure by witholding health cover.
Part of deciding to do a thing is to pay for it yourself, not to demand that someone else pay for your choices.
Richard – Yes! Spot on!
[Good] government never was intended to involve and insert itself within family matters. Ever since the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, US government continues to encroach upon family and sexual matters.
Good government’s primary purpose is to provide for the “national defense,” – yet, that is near absent with Obama occupying the White House. All kinds of examples can be given how Obama is allowing our national defense to be weakened. Its own Department of Justice is just one glaring and pathetic example. That dept. cannot even admit that the Fort Hood massacre was terrorist in nature. Neither can that same dept. step away from its busybody activities and bug out of Arizona’s efforts to prevent illegal aliens from crossing into its borders.
Nathan, Roe v. Wade is actually not an example of my point – I am ALWAYS in favor of the federal government/court granting/protecting personal rights (assuming such a granting/protection does not violate the constitution). In the case of Roe v. Wade, the court ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion until viability. Although legally significant, the ruling was just a reiteration and specific interpretation of rights already protected under the constitution.
Instead, I am against federal legislation (e.g., Catholic Compromise, ObamaCare, Patriot Act, etc.) that LIMITS personal freedom.
Richard wrote:
“the court ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion until viability.”
Geno points out:
The problem is with the term “viability.” Since viability is a function of technology. Whatever your position on the issue, hopefully we can agree that whatever it is that makes us human and grants us human rights (including the right to life) does not depend on technology.
Richard –
I understand the point which you are making – at least, I think I do.
However, be that as it may, I’ve never felt that gov’t, especially the Supreme Court needed to create law, such as it did, with the unrestricted [result] and far reaching implications, as Roe v. Wade.
Abortion (at least “therapeutic” abortion), was always a private choice between the woman and her doctor. With Roe v. Wade, the government horned in. After that, abortion wantonly became a form of female contraception, with the irreversible result of destroying human life and leaving abortive women to deal with all types of physical and / or emotional, psychological problems that severely haunt many of them, the remainder of their adult lives.
Not only did Roe v. Wade bring easy and devestating choices to pregnant women, looking for an easy way out of their pregnancy and maternal responsibility privilege, it also spawned a new inventive method for government to act as an American Eugenics Czar.
Abortive babies are never able to be permitted to live, grow, and become pregnant, thus reaping their own offspring. The devestating immoral results of unrestricted and wanton abortion, is population manipulation (control) as it snuffs out posterity. Hitler would have loved a German Roe v. Wade decision in Germany. It would have helped him with facilitating his eugenics’ goals. But, there was no German Roe v. Wade court decision, giving Jewish and Gypsy German women an excuse to legally kill off their growing pre-born offspring. And, we know history enough to realize how Hitler took matters in his own hands to “thin” the “unwanted” German population.
I might add that my maternal grandmother was told by her doctor that she better have a life saving abortion – (life saving for herself). Three times she had her suitcase packed to go ahead with a “therapeutic” abortion. But, by the grace of God she refused the medical advice. As a result, I am posting this comment. Also born and living as a result of Grandma’s decision, are my three brothers and multiple grandchildren and great grandchildren from my mother who was spared an abortion death at the hands of her mother – my (hero) grandmother!
Two Points:
Geno – I fully agree with you. Most people agree that sperm or an unfertilized egg alone do not constitute life, while a newborn baby does. Yet, precisely where in this transition life begins is likely to be debated for years to come. In Roe v. Wade, the decision did not directly protect life itself with the “viability” clause, but it more vaguely protected that which would likely become life (without stating precisely when this occurs). As technology, (wo)man’s understanding of the natural world, politics, religion, etc., continue to evolve and interact with one another, this viability point (or even transition-to-life point) is likely to change and/or become more/less apparent.
Nathan – I do not at all agree with your point. Abortion is legal in the United States; eugenics is not. This is much the same as purchasing a firearm in the United States is legal (for those who qualify), while shooting someone (not in an act of self defense) is illegal. With your line of logic, one should probably first outlaw high-fructose corn syrup, alcohol, television, nicotine, and a whole slew of other things that directly result in the death of people, many of whom tend to be of a particular socioeconomic status and/or ethnicity. Legal and clinically implemented abortion, on the other hand, typically only saves lives, whether it be saving the life of a mother during a high-risk pregnancy or offering a safe alternative to the “back alley” approach. In the case of early-term abortions (I can’t defend – and don’t defend – later than that as the situation, in my mind, becomes quite complicated – SEE ABOVE), a zygote is not recognized under federal or international law as being a person and/or a protected living entity; thus, genocide is not committed in this instance much like it is not committed when either of the two fundamental components of a zygote are intentionally destroyed (e.g., during male masturbation or when SPERMicide is used during sex). I do, however, agree with one general theme that you seem to be conveying: abortions are not a good thing. They can be emotionally traumatic, physically traumatic, costly, etc. I feel that woman should be educated, advised, and empowered to USE the means (e.g., abstinence, contraceptives, etc.) and HAVE the means (e.g., adequate maternal health, financial security, a stable family unit, an improved self image, etc.) to where abortion MUST rarely be used. But regardless of whether women need to have or chose to have an abortion, I shall always defend their constitutional right to make that choice.
Richard –
I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with you as you fail to understand the larger picture involved.
First of all, you seem to compare (even analogize) the fall-out (massacre life ending) immediate results of willful and wanton abortion with that of a person abusing ” high-fructose corn syrup, alcohol, television, nicotine, and a whole slew of other things” [Your words]
Secondly, you fall for the often utilized lib extremist assertion (thus justifying every and any abortion) of “high-risk pregnancy or offering a safe alternative to the “back alley” approach.” [Again, your words]
Thirdly, you fail to address the eugenics practice that I mentioned in my comment, which is often the inertia and basis for the lib / extremist motivation for unrestricted no holds barred abortion genocide as sanctioned by the antiquated Roe v. Wade 1973 decision.
Finally, I have to take great exception to your one statement when you say:
“Abortion is legal in the United States; eugenics is not.”
I maintain that most laws, (good or bad) possess their unintended consequences. I further maintain that my comment about Roe v. Wade leading up to a subsequent American “Eugenics Czar” type operation is the nasty and deadly unintended circumstance of the ill-fated and antiquated Neanderthal Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
Oh yes, here [below] is an excellent resource that debunks the whole over population myth as believed and practiced by the Margraret Sanger liberal modern day Obama eugenics crowd:
pop.org
Conservative News and Views,
Thank you for posting my previous comment – the February 13, 2012 at 1:23 pm comment. I posted the same comment following the CNS.com news article of “‘The President Has Not Changed His Position’ on Contraceptive Mandate, WH Chief of Staff Says” –
link to cnsnews.com
Unfortunately, for some unknow reason, (even after posting a second time) CNSnews.com failed to post my comment. I can only conclude that it has some type of policy that one cannot make a logical assertion using Hitler’s WWII Germany. This does not surprise me, as CNSnews.com does not carry any of the legitimate news about Obama’s unconstitutional non natural born citizen status as “president.”
Terry and Conservative News and Views, crowd: Thank you for your journalistic integrity. It is a pleasure to know that there are some news outlets that will not allow themselves to be part and parcel of the mainstream media of denial, arrogance and silence!
Point 1: No, I could never compare abortion to “high-fructose corn syrup, alcohol, television, nicotine…”; the latter is responsible for countless deaths in the US, while the former (i.e., abortion) is not. Please see my previous justification.
Point 2: Challenging my “assertion” with another unsubstantiated assertion is pointless. I have provided peer-reviewed sources for my claim:
link to jstor.org
link to jstor.org
And although the number of deaths may be disputed, the fact that mothers die during high-risk pregnancy or a “back alley” abortion can not. If you disagree, I challenge you to find a peer-reviewed source saying otherwise.
Point 3: You clearly don’t understand the difference between eugenics and genocide, as you mistakenly use them interchangeably.
Eugenics (according to Webster): a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
So I have no idea how abortion controls human mating. Also, abortion is a) not imposed on people by the government (its a CHOICE one makes), b) it does not systematically target a racial, political, or cultural group, and c) it is as much genocide as the use of a spermicide is or the practice of abstinence (which also restricts the perpetuation of genetic information by those who chose/are forced to practice it). I am guessing you don’t consider masturbation, the use of spermicides, or abstinence to be genocide.
Lastly, your argument on unintended consequences of legal behavior is a slippery slope. Using the same ill logic, I could claim that religion should be outlawed given that its illegal practice (which is an unintended consequence) has directly led to millions of deaths (e.g., Anders Behring Breivik massacre, 9/11 – the list would go on for pages with countless wars included).
Nathan, your arguments are so irrational and illogical that they border on comical (are you actually a liberal troll?). To claim that Ronald Reagan is the former “Chief Sex Offender” because he held the highest political office during a time of legalized abortion is absurd and an insult to conservatism. But I am curious has to how you will continue your argument, despite being so out-of-touch that you most certainly do more good for the pro-choice argument (likely why CNS.com censored your previous comment). Thus, I shall continue to entertain your “creative” line of thinking…as I find it just that – entertaining.
For future reference: most JSTOR links require a subscription. It’s not much use to provide a link that non-subscribers cannot follow. (And CNAV gets no commission from JSTOR or any other subscription service.)
Terry, thank you for the heads-up. I will keep that in mind for future posts.
Richard – Re: Your February 14, 2012 at 11:46 am comment:
You may be correct about the dictionary definition of “eugenics,” but the popular and historical outgrowth practice of the term, ends up in population control. Mind you, humans are not to be treated like over-run rat and mice populations. Therefore, my interchangeable use of “eugenics” and “genocide” can be understood by those who are willing to admit that various forms of human authority are attempting to “correct” the “over population problem” [myth]:
http://www.pop.org
By your logic:
Population Control = Abstinence = Eugenics = Genocide
Thus, all who do not procreate freely (much like animals in the wild) are engaging in genocide. I’m not too sure too many people would agree with your “popular and historical outgrowth practice of the term”.
But I do agree that we are “not to be treated like over-run rat and mice populations” – this is why I do not think it’s right if human authority (i.e., a politician) dictates what women can and cannot do with their bodies.
Women should never be forced to use contraception or have an abortion. I think we both agree on this. They should, however, have the right to chose either if they wish. Given that you claim they should not be controlled like rats or mice, I feel we should agree on this but I suspect we don’t.
In addition to being ridiculously fantastic with analogies to Hitler, your ideas are fundamentally irreconcilable due to their internal inconsistencies and hypocrisies.
But now I’m really stating to think you’re a liberal troll. In which case, I’d try to sound a bit more lucid if you want people to take you seriously :)
You guys are arguing about abortion when the article and issues discussed in the article relate to the providing of contraception. Abortion and birth control as it’s discussed in the article (the pill) are not even comparable.
I should also like to point out that many married women (legally or common-law) as well as those in long-term relationships utilize the pill as a form of contraception. It’s not simply promiscuous women as many would seem to imply.
One more thing….
There will never be agreement on this issue because the two sides can’t even agree on what the issue is. Without first agreeing on the nature of the difference of opinion, how is any resolution possible?