The government can impose values … but the church? No way!

Video via Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s place and Gateway Pundit. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz thinks the church should not be imposing values on followers and employees, and yet it’s appropriate for the government to do so?

And mandate people pay for it? Obligatory video from yesterday.

httpvh://youtu.be/fKvbPzsl5aQ

I just love it when liberals throw out numbers “like 99 percent of …” You just know it’s total bull feathers.

One other solution to this issue would be to move away from employer-sponsored health care insurance. That way, individuals would be able to select individual policies that cover what they want covered. No mandates.

Of course, many will say that nobody would be able to afford insurance at current rates, but maybe we should also look at why we insist on coverage for preventative care? I’m not saying get rid of preventative care, but I think costs would drop dramatically for services like annual exams if we got rid of most of the overhead.

I think that costs would dramatically decrease and more options would be available if the government got out of the heath care business. I know it.

I know, I know … The nanny state thinks that if we don’t provide “free” coverage (cough, cough, gag, gag) for those services nobody will take the initiative to go get a check up. <rolleyes>

Update: I did go back and cross off “followers” from the first paragraph. Note the first commenter was more concerned with that, and seems totally fine with the point of this post – the government imposing values on taxpayers.

34 replies
  1. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    “the church should not be imposing values on followers”
    I listened carefully…she said “employees”, she did not say followers.

  2. zedgar2
    zedgar2 says:

    Three comments. First, if you accept that 99% of women have used contraceptives then the argument that without the mandate there is no access to contraceptives goes out the window. Where have all those women been getting those contraceptives before Obamacare came along? Second, the left cites the 99% figure as evidence that the religious principle is moot because it is not being followed. But the Church also teaches that we shouldn’t lie. Does the fact that more than 99% of people have ever lied make that religious principle moot? Finally, the DNC Chair says it is not right that, in the absence of the mandate,? women who work for religious organizations will not be able to have the same access to contraceptives that other women have.? But so what? The UAW benefit plan at GM provides free in-network eyeglasses every two years. But non-union workers at other employers, including me, are unlikely to have that same access to tax-subsidized eyeglass coverage.? Maybe we should complain that this is a visually impaired persons issue and start a campaign to fix this gross inequity about vitally needed access.
    ?

  3. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I still don’t get it. Providing coverage for contraceptives is not the same as using the contraceptives. Methinks the prescription by the Church is on using contraceptives. One has the choice of using them or not. The rest of the story is political theater.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Until the church changes its basic tenets and beliefs, they should not have to violate them.? Providing contraceptives, voluntarily or involuntarily, is tacit approval of their use.? People that work there a) knew the deal going it, and b) can buy them elsewhere at their leisure if they so choose.

  4. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    The issue in question in Italy, is that some Church owned properties are in fact run for profit (hotels, hostels and other activities), hence they should pay taxes on the profits. Meanwhile, Italy AND even Greece are taking concrete steps to rain in deficits. In Washington: nada!

  5. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    Wow. judging by my experiences yesterday, the Reps picked a wedge issue to pursue that is political suicide.
    At work..I work with women that are basically apolitical, so I keep my mouth shut…they were wild over this!
    Went to a meeting last night and after the meeting we always have drinks together, like in the 1800’s somehow the men separate from the women.
    Again, the topic came up. The “bayer aspirin between your , gals” quote was attributed to Santorum (even tho that was from his backer). An older woman, who I always admired for her quiet and genteel demeanor said (red faced) “Santorum can take that Bayer aspirin and shove it up his &^%$#”!
    1/2 the voters of this country are women.? Are these guys THAT stupid??
    ?
    ?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      This isn’t a Santorum issue, it is a freedom of religion issue.? Just curious: will any of your drinking buddies be affected if the Catholic church gets an exemption and is not forced to provide contraception coverage?? Come to think of it, how many women in the entire country will be affected?? I don’t understand why this is such an alarming issue, particularly if their doctors are not affiliated with the hospitals in question.? Are they?? Nobody is removing anyone’s access to birth control, just who may be required to pay for it.
      ?
      To wit: a quick look at BirthControlBuzz (http://www.birthcontrolbuzz.com/) shows many forms of birth control that are cheap and as easy to get as typing in your order.? No proof of religious affiliation required.
      ?
      Why the outrage?
      ?
      ?

      • crystal4
        crystal4 says:

        Seriously??!! Really??!!! You’re sending me a link about how many other forms of contraception there are? How out of touch are you with what is happening here? It’s now not about the pill. (But,how? denigrating was that aspirin comment with the word “gals” used?)
        BTW: Santorum on contraception: “It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. … If it’s not for purposes of procreation, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women.”
        Anyway, it is now all about anti-women, anti-homosexuals, anti-homosexuals in the military, anti-women on the front lines…
        Don’t you see, freedoms are being imposed upon? Don’t you see this is what the founding fathers railed against?

      • GdavidH
        GdavidH says:

        Dims, why bother?

        The lefties have completely perverted this to equal denial of women’s rights and they are sticking to it. Witness the comments from the resident lefties. There is no mention, let alone a rebuttle, to the freedom OF religion argument being made by the right. They are hell bent on controlling the false message.

        They actually believe that by NOT?FORCING the church to provide contraception within their health insurance policy?that somehow women are being denied “health care”.

        Utter nonsense! Pun intended just for laughs.? ? ?

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Crystal, if you bothered to actually read my post, you would see that the reference to the contraceptive page was to show you how easy they are to get and how inexpensive they are, not about how many forms of contraception there are.? That was simply the first site that came up.? No permission from anyone needed, just a credit card.? If you can get them anywhere, whose freedoms are being usurped again?
        ?
        Instead of answering my simple questions, you chose to go on a “Republicans are bigots” rant.? Misdirection again?

  6. Eric
    Eric says:

    Obammy certainly bit off more than he can chew with this latest of his many poor choices. ?Liberals can whine all day long about the importance of including this ?”woman’s rights” issue within the framework of the lousy healthcare bill that hasn’t gotten off the ground yet (and hopefully never will), but this latest edict isn’t now and never has been about “woman’s rights.” ?It’s a Constitutional issue! ?Our government, in all it’s wisdom, has overstepped it’s bounds… AGAIN! ?The courts will prove this out, as well as the un-Constitutional mandate that orders us all to buy into an insurance exchange, OR ELSE! ?Liberals do the dumbest things when they’re in a position of power. ?They’ll always choose to be above any Constitutional barriers to the silly laws that they believe are “best” for us. ?Fortunately it seems there are a lot more of us who will not allow this stupidity to happen. ??

  7. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Debbie Wasserboy Sgt. Schultz is one of the worst chimichanga-eating Dem demons out there. The Stalinists order everyone to provide something for “free,” and when anyone objects, he’s attacked as denying women the “free” stuff that everyone else can get. Even if the anti-religious bigotry of the Dem demon Nazis weren’t in play, it’s still an incredible display of facism. It wouldn’t surprise me if Barry’s fat cat puppet masters, Warren “Gimme” Buffett and George Soros, weren’t heavily invested in contraceptive and baby-killing companies.

    • crystal4
      crystal4 says:

      As you say, Dimsdale “It is always nice to have someone to ?set zero? on the intelligence scale? ‘ 😀

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        As you have said before, crystal, “apples and oranges”: Tim’s tongue-in-cheek commentary is not equivalent to Debbie Downer’s “head up hindquarters” interview.? He is being funny, she is trying to be serious.? I guess…

  8. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    LOL Tim, I have a different take. DWS {aka Dog Wags(look up 2nd definition of wags)} Senselessly is wrong. It’s the Constitution Stupid -? ITCS. Ok it needs work it’s not KISS.

  9. liz2012
    liz2012 says:

    The only reason that women are getting upset by this issue is because the media has once again done a fantastic job of distracting people from the real issue – which is the right to freedom of religion.? This right is intended to prevent the government from interfering with a person’s practice of religion.??The Catholic Church has a rule about birth control and?that it all there is to it.? It does not matter if?100% of?women use birth control – that is not the point.??If?women are getting upset about this, it is because they have bought into the media hype.??Quite frankly, this is a gender neutral issue?but?not everyone?understands?this.? Finally, just because many?people break?a particular rule, it does not make the rule obsolete.??It may?indicate that?this may be an unpopular rule but that is all that it indicates.? Rules are rules and religious rules should never be impacted or imposed upon?by the will of the government.?
    ?

  10. kateinmaine
    kateinmaine says:

    it may be off point (or is it?), but if the gov’t reeeeaaaaallllly wants to get into the ‘imposing values’ business, perhaps they should start with something within their purview–how about currency?? gee, that would be nice.? look at what it’s done for china.? and since we’re looking at china (oh, if we could only be china for a day!), how about their ‘contraception policy’? ? yep, winner!? it’s so easy when everyone is an employee/follower with no religion. . .

  11. winnie
    winnie says:

    Bottom line for me is that O care is unconstitutional no matter how you slice it.? If Obama weren’t all about stomping the constitution in everything he “accomplishes”, this wouldn’t even be an issue.
    If O care states that any religious organization MUST provide birth control coverage through their insurance policy, then I would say that separation of church and state is just one more “rule” that has been broken.? Apparently in the world of lefty democrats it’s super bad-a** to break rules only to turn around and force your new rules down the resisting throats of others.
    Maybe these hundreds of thousands of US women who work for religious organizations in the US would have a true “choice” if there were alternate jobs out there, but gee, there isn’t much to choose from anymore, is there??
    And the lesson here:? Religious organizations create jobs, Obama doesn’t.

  12. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    OK Got it! Defend Our Constitution, Read Our Constitution Stupid =DOC ROCS?? OR
    Read Our Constitution And Defend Our Constitution = ROC N DOC?? See what happens when you work on stuff in the early AM.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        I rescind my happy face on that ad hominem attack.? My comment stands, without the humor.? Abortion is a bigger “sacrament” to the Democrats than “birth control” will ever be.

      • crystal4
        crystal4 says:

        Glad you, master of the ad hominem, rescinded that “happy face”. What you deem humerus is not funny. The stereotyping of all democrats as being godless, tree-huggers, baby killers, communists, etc.? is ludicrous . Why not try debating without the hostile stereotypes?

      • Lynn
        Lynn says:

        Oh Please, Dims is amazingly careful with his comments. There are others here who sling out one-size-fit all comments about Democrats or Republicans, but not Dims. Mirror mirror on the wall….

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        I did consider using the term “sacred cow” instead of sacrament, but thought it might be taken in the wrong way….? ;-)?

  13. crystal4
    crystal4 says:

    Nonononono…you insist on having the last post on every topic…as if that would make you right.
    The only people that love abortion is the rightie politicians..it gives them fodder to gin up the evangelicals.
    No one but you guys love the thought of an abortion.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      How can I insist on having the last post?? Who is locking down your computer?? Who is stopping you from posting yet another pithy response (albeit off topic) to any of my posts?? I gave you several opportunities to expand on your comments above, yet you chose to remain silent, or went off on a totally different tangent.? The only assumptions I can make are that you either have no answer, or choose not to.? If you have the time to go off topic, you have the time to stay on topic and prove your point.
      ?
      And where are the ad hominems?? A review of this post reveals none.? I am sure you can direct me to some whoppers.? I know I called sammy “Eeyore” once, if that helps, but it was tongue in cheek, not derogatory.

  14. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    – To fight amongst ourselves (women’s rights vs the church,? whites vs blacks,? Dems vs. Repubs.)? is only?to our detriment.?
    -Without the Constitution these discussions would not be allowed?to happen at all.??
    -And?when the President goes back on his word to a religious organization, demands that they change their beliefs – to not practice their faith freely? – do we really expect that women’s rights or individual rights mean anything to this man?
    -? No elected official has?challenged him.? Complicit – me thinks so.? ??
    -This is blatant action against the very core of what is America.??
    – Is any alternative to the Constitution being offered?? Any higher standard being presented?? No.? But it is clear that something will replace it.?
    – We cannot fight amongst ourselves, or we all lose.? We will be less than our forefathers knew we could be.?
    – Without the Constitution, we are not America or Americans.?That is not acceptable.?
    -Let’s focus people.? A lot of blood has been shed so that we can ” chat” here in? our leisure.? Let us not let it have been in vain.
    -??
    ?

    • PatRiot
      PatRiot says:

      Let us not forget that the Patriot Act took some of our rights to due process.? That Bush grew the govenrment larger with FEMA and Homeland Security – enough to make a Democrat jealous.? Then there was the bipartisan economic crashof 2008?- designed by Dodd and Frank.? Then Bush wanted to give a trillion $$ to Hank Paulson to fix it.? Yeah.? This is a bout money and power.? It has nothing to do with the Constitution, our rights and what is best for America.? That is the ugly reality we regular Americans are up against.

Comments are closed.