Wake up! The Obama Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have launched a massive effort to mandate that all Americans pay for contraception, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs. Why? What dreaded disease in women’s health does this mandate protect us from? The Pill, the day after pill, the abortion pill and sterilization don’t protect women from AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. So what dreaded disease are the Obama Administration and the HHS trying to save us from? Oh yeah! It must be the dreaded disease of pregnancy. But wait, why is this mandate such a big deal? Well, I’ll tell you. It doesn’t matter how many good Catholic women or women of other religions use contraception, the Catholic Church is pro-life in their teachings and principles and shouldn’t have to provide or pay for it. Not for any of their employees working at any Catholic run institution or employees of any religious organization. We shouldn’t have to pay for any of theses services with our tax dollars either. I paid for my own and would never have asked someone else to cover the cost for my choices, and generally speaking, using any of these services are choices, not necessities.
Wake up! This is NOT about women’s health or some obscure war on women. This is about the Federal Government telling protected organizations what they can and can’t do.
Wake up! If they can do this to Catholics and other organizations of conscience today, then who will they boss around tomorrow? This is another in the series of slippery slopes toward the loss of our rights as Americans.
Once again I say, wake up! There was a mandate released last month that will violate our civil liberties and free exercise of religion by forcing every American and every U.S. employer, regardless of religion or conscience, to pay for abortion-causing drugs, like Ella, in health insurance plans.
“The Con” – a video presented by AUL:
Can you believe that two weeks ago, Secretary for the Health and Human Services Department, Kathleen Sebelius, admitted during a Congressional hearing that this Mandate is needed because, “reducing pregnancies will cut health care costs”? Are you kidding me? That’s insane. Contraceptives are available now on the cheap and some free and pregnancies have not gone down at all. Personally, I think these progressives are the racists because they think poor black and Hispanic women can’t get birth control unless it’s free.
Wake up! This mandate, due to take effect this summer, will violate the very principles our nation was founded on – your freedom of religion and conscience! Maybe you don’t think so. Let me give you an example of the administration picking and choosing which freedoms different religions can have.
The Northern Arapaho Tribe in Wyoming filed a federal lawsuit last year contending the refusal to issue permits for killing bald eagles violates tribal members’ religious freedom. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has taken the unusual step of issuing a permit allowing an American Indian tribe to kill two bald eagles for religious purposes. Federal law prohibits the killing of bald eagles, the national bird, in almost all cases. The government keeps eagle feathers and body parts in a federal repository and tribal members can apply for them for use in religious ceremonies. The lawyer for the tribe revealed in a legal filing this week that the federal agency had issued the permit on Friday. The report states that the federal permit will allow the Northern Arapaho to kill up to two bald eagles off the reservation.
Now, I don’t have any problem with Native Americans killing bald eagles for their religious ceremonies. What I do have a problem with is the government picking and choosing which religion is deserving of exceptions to federal laws. It’s okay for the Arapaho Tribe to have an exemption from the law, but not the Catholics or other Christian religions.
Wake up! If the president has the authority to violate our constitutional rights in this way, what else can he do? This time President Obama is targeting Catholics and pro-lifers, but next time he could target a group that you or I belong to.
If this mandate stands, then what limit will be put on the government as far as controlling our lives?
Wow. I really like this guy. He loves our country and understands its values. He truly understands what the Founding Fathers were doing when they first signed the Declaration of Independence and then our Constitution. He explains his positions in a way even I can understand. I just get a good feeling about him. He believes in America and understands our history. He really understands the issues with the middle east. I really enjoyed reading this editorial written by Rick Santorum. I think I like this guy more now than I did before.
I decided early on in this election process that I wasn’t going to cast my vote for whoever looked most like they could beat President Obama. I felt that if I truly wanted God to intervene, I needed to vote with my heart. We have to have faith that even though the person we choose to vote for isn’t the front-runner, if we stay firm in our values and what we want for this country, God will intervene. Through Him all things are possible. He’s (God) certainly more powerful than any GOP establishment. We have to put our faith in Him and he will guide our country to the right leader, whoever it might be. I feel it could be Rick Santorum, you might feel it’s someone else. Either way, just vote with your values and principles and put faith in God to help our country. That’s the only way we can get real change we can believe in.
Please read the following article and see if you might feel the same way.
January 30, 2012
No More Leading from Behind for America
By Rick Santorum
My passion for protecting and preserving freedom is a gift that comes to me from my grandfather, an immigrant who brought my father to this country and whose well-weathered hands mined coal in Southwestern Pennsylvania until he was 72. He left the totalitarian regime of Mussolini’s Italy to bring his family to freedom.
He worked hard and committed himself to creating a better life for his children and grandchildren. He taught me how to treasure the gift of freedom, to have faith in God’s grace, to achieve what American liberty offers to those who work hard and to love and support a family. The Pennsylvania town my grandfather called home is just a few miles down the road from the field where Flight 93 crashed on that beautiful, blue-sky September day; a day when radical jihadists declared war on America, in America, on our own soil. The passengers and crew bravely stood up for freedom.
While I was searching for a picture for this post I was appalled at how far some groups had gone to disparage religion. What’s worse is the things we held most to be true are now being challenged by people in the government like that weasel Eric Holder and his whole corrupt DOJ. If the Supreme Court of the United States decides to step into even one case, it opens the door for them to step in and tell ALL churches what they can and can’t do. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?
The following is an article I got from PJ Media and was written by J. Christian Adams. This court case is a big deal and all people of faith should know about it. I have heard about it at various times while it was making its way to the Supreme Court. We need to wake up and see what’s happening to religion in our country before it’s no longer protected and the government decides which teachings from the bible churches can to teach and which ones are forbidden, or “hate speech”.
Please read Mr. Adams article here:
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice has quietly advanced legal arguments in direct conflict with Catholic teaching and the teaching of other Christian denominations. If the Department of Justice prevails, the Catholic Church and other churches will have a difficult time preserving doctrinal traditions central to church teaching, particularly in church schools. The quiet and radical legal attack comes with perilous political risk, because active Catholics may determine Obama’s fate in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
Like so much from this Justice Department, Holder’s radical legal positions are at odds with long American traditions. This latest species of Holder’s radicalism is a frontal attack on faith communities.
In the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Holder’s DOJ argued that a church cannot fire an employee for acting contrary to church teaching, and contrary to an employment contract that incorporates that teaching. A teacher filed a complaint to the government about how the school handled her narcolepsy, which presumably would involve sleeping at work. The church school then fired the teacher because the church forbids lawsuits among believers based on 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. (“But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!”)
Holder’s Justice Department believes that religious schools should not be able to enjoy a longstanding exemption to various employment laws which conflict with church teaching, or, the “ministerial exception.”
Assistant to the Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger (photo below) argued that the religious school could not fire the teacher for filing a complaint to the government even if church teaching forbids it. (Some background on Kruger here, here, and here). At oral argument, Kruger advocated positions so extreme that even Justice Elena Kagan appeared to reject them.
It’s not hard to see where this slippery slope slides. What if a teacher in a Catholic school does something directly contrary to Catholic teaching? Or, consider this possibility offered by American Catholic:
Then, too, what also about Catholic women using this principle to sue the Catholic Church in the United States because they are excluded from the priesthood? There’s absolutely no doubt that when it comes to ordination, the Catholic Church discriminates in favor of males. Should SCOTUS be able to tell the Catholic Church in the United States that it must redress the imbalance?
Yes…if, as an organization, the Catholic Church is bound by federal employment discrimination statutes.
No…if, as an organization, the U.S. Catholic Church is exempt from federal employment discrimination statutes.
Far fetched? Not to Kruger.
At oral argument, she wouldn’t categorically preclude the possibility. Instead, she told the Court that the government interest isn’t currently sufficient to justify an assault on the male priesthood. Kruger said “the government does have a compelling and indeed overriding interest in ensuring that individuals are not prevented from coming to the government with information about illegal conduct.” In other words, even if church doctrine prohibits you from settling disputes with the church through the government, the Obama administration cares not. Holder wants informants, or as the DOJ prefers to call them, complainants.
You can read the transcript of the argument with details of Kruger’s assault on religious independence.
Sometimes the radicalism of Obama’s Justice Department is on full display, like when it sues Arizona or blocksSouth Carolina voter ID. Other times, the radicalism creeps along the margins, as Kruger did at the Supreme Court, arguing that the long respected ministerial exception to church doctrine is no longer respected by this president and his Justice Department.
Expect a decision very soon in the case. Let’s hope if Kruger gets her way, the voters notice in November.