White House: Government found “appropriate balance” on health care abortion mandate
During a press briefing yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney mentioned he thought the Obama administration had worked to find “the appropriate balance between religious beliefs and the need to provide preventive services to American women.”
An appropriate balance? Their definition of an appropriate balance is to provide waivers to some Catholics and leaving the mandate in place for other Catholics. That’s like saying an appropriate balance would be to select a certain percentage of women from a hat and letting them know they can not have access to any contraception services at all.
Even if a health care insurance policy does not cover abortion or contraception, that does not mean women do not have access to those services. Services are certainly just available as they would be if covered in a health plan, it’s just that women would need to pay for those services.
What I find interesting here is Obama’s health care plan pushed this issue into the spotlight for many Catholics. Quite honestly, there were plenty of Catholic small business owners who provided health care to employees who probably did not give much thought as to what was included in the certificate of coverage (COC) documents. Now, specifically due to the Obama administrations self-defined mandate on the subject, a lot more people are interested … and coming to the conclusion they need to fight back.
A clip from Carney’s press briefing yesterday from CNSNews with a hat tip to Gateway Pundit.
23 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Steve excuse me, how could women access those services without the government’s help. Aren’t we all just helpless children with out Big Bother (no misspelling) holding our hand?
I think Carney meant “an appropriate balance between defying the Constitution and obeying it”.
Well, every time things do not look promising for The Reps, they try to stir up the old “guns and religion”? fight.
They imposed themselves on Komen-that? backfired big time- I believe Koman is toast.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/07/us/komen-executive-resigns/?hpt=us_c2
Now, just as I was thinking this AM…I thought this is a biiig mistake…another can of worms opened. I was right.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/209101-poll-majority-of-catholics-support-contraception-coverage
?
Personally, I find it interesting you used a CNN link to prove your attack on Ms. Handel I read an article on this same issue from Yahoo (not a right or left news service). That article, as is proper for journalism gave quotes from Ms. Handel where she explained that the Board had decided to limit funding to groups that were not staying with the purpose of Koman and was in place before she became a member of the Board. She resigned because of how Koman backed down on their decision, as is her right. As to the fact that Koman is toast is interesting. Koman for the Cure is an extraordinary organization, ask any breast cancer survivor that I know. I have no idea how CNN could find anyone who is a breast cancer survivor who feels this way, but I bet a poll would find overwhelming support.
?
As to your second link, nothing in that poll ,mentions the fact that? Catholic institutions will have to pay for sterilization and morning after pills. A direct contradiction to their religion. I personally don’t know of Public Religion Research Institute, but they have very shoddy poll data, if they did not include this in their questions.
This mob we call our elected officials has brass.? Telling any religion how it is to practice its faith is a blatant attack on the first Amendment.? Flat out un-American.
This doesn’t affect just the Catholic church.? Every person who considers themselves to be an American should be outraged.
Bring the discussion back to supporting and defending the Constitution every time.? Because without it we are less than we are capable of.?
Without it, we are not America.
At the risk of offending women, for which I apologize from the deepest recesses of my heart, why is the choice and control for women, regarding pregnancy, not start until Abortion becomes the answer? Shouldn’t responsibility be part of the choice and control?
I had a son out of wedlock. His mother, to her great credit, never considered abortion. That baby is now an almost 23 year old man.
I understand the option of abortion must stand under certain circumstances regarding health, rape. But why isn’t a woman’s right to choose and control her body exercised before abortion becomes the only way to answer those important questions?
Maybe I’m degrading these questions to adolescence. Or maybe I just think with so many birth control choices available the choice could be made far before Women have to go through what can be an emotional roller coaster with health issues added to make it an awful experience.
My Son’s Mother and I both chose to have him. I have no doubt that she feels as much love for him as I do and I can’t imagine choosing that he not exist.
So hearing Jay Carney explain that he thought the Obama Administration brought about, ?<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, serif; font-size:…
At the risk of offending women, for which I apologize from the deepest recesses of my heart, why is the choice and control for women, regarding pregnancy, not start until Abortion becomes the answer? Shouldn’t responsibility be part of the choice and control?I had a son out of wedlock. His mother, to her great credit, never considered abortion. That baby is now an almost 23 year old man.I understand the option of abortion must stand under certain circumstances regarding health, rape…
?But why isn’t a woman’s right to choose and control her body exercised before abortion becomes the only way to answer those important questions?Maybe I’m degrading these questions to adolescence. Or maybe I just think with so many birth control choices available the choice could be made far before Women have to go through what can be an emotional roller coaster with health issues added to make it an awful experience.My Son’s Mother and I both chose to have him. I have no doubt that she feels as much love for him as I do and I can’t imagine choosing that he not exist.<br…
So hearing Jay Carney explain that he thought the Obama Administration brought about, ??“the appropriate balance between?religious?beliefs and the need to provide preventive services to American women.??Makes me truly ill.
We have a Constitution which should help Presidents,Senators and Representatives make decisions. It is supposed to be fact that President Obama is a Constitutional expert. I am beginning to think this refers to his personal constitution (Vitality,Physique, Build).
Both woman and Men are capable of choice; they have control of their bodies. They, we…me, We just need to be responsible enough to take and make those choices at the appropriate time, and not after. I have a pocket Constitution. I refer to this document often. I hold it with great esteem. Many fought to bring it to life, while losing theirs: It would be great if we had leaders who would stand for this document and remember how hard fought…
it’s own birth was, and how many have lost their own precious gift to defend it.?
I apologize for the long and broken replies. I’m not sure exactly what happened. No matter, I wanted to make sure my entire response was brought to the discussion!
Thanks for the patience everybody and sorry Jim!!!?
READ THE FAQ. There is a limit to the comments. Since these are your firsts posts, I’ll let it slide, but this is not your personal blog, it is a place for pithy comments concerning the post.
What would you expect him to say?
There is no ‘appropriate balance’ for Catholics on abortion.? None. ?Why not mandate Muslims or Jews to eat pork or Hindi to eat cow flesh ahile you’re at it?
The more I think about it..this mandate has been in place in 28 states and nary a word from the bishops or the righties before now, hmmmm.
Co-ordinated sermons on Sunday, letters to the church members….now…why not before??
Political attack orchestrated by the right…I think the tax exempt status needs some looking at!
God forbid people and leaders actually get more involved with the political process, become more educated to the point where they realize what’s happening, and that it does not match up with their own belief system. Never mind the Hyde amendment that has been in place and thoroughly discussed since inception more than 14 years ago.
How *wouldn’t* you get a single message from the Roman Catholic church?? Did you think the churches in the 28 states were autonomous?? And a critical look at the RC church will show it to be anything but conservative.? If anything, the church is pretty lefty on most issues, but religious freedom isn’t one of them.
From the National Catholic Register regarding “no word from the bishops etc (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/hhs-decision-prompts-more-opposition-from-catholics):
“Health and Human Services? new mandate, they pointed out, ?is much stricter than existing state mandates,? because its exemption, which was allegedly drafted by the ACLU, has previously been implemented in only three states.
?Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription-drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law that pre-empts state law,? the bishops noted.
But the new federal mandate ?closes off all these avenues of relief.?
Obamatate (v): To destroy America through non-stop attacks upon the Constitution with pernicious progressive “reforms” designed to make every citizen beholden to a centralized, Marxist government.
This is about our freedom and our Constitution.? Without them, there will be no?reproductive rights.
Are you interpreting the constitution…or is it the function of the Supreme Court?
October 1, 2007
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today turned down a request by Catholic Charities of New York to review a state court decision requiring insurance companies to include contraceptive coverage in drug benefit packages. The Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves in place a law that promotes women’s health and addresses gender discrimination while appropriately protecting religious freedom.
?
You need to read more about the differences between this ruling and this new mandate.
Then there will be no more complaints about the Citizens United decision, right?? Or the Sackett decision against the omnipotence of EPA decisions, etc., etc?? And you can be sure that there will be plenty of people unhappy with whatever decision is made on ?bamacare, whichever way it goes.
?
If the Supreme Court were all seeing and all knowing, and by extension, all perfect, nobody would care who got appointed to the court.? Clearly, none of the preceding is the case.
?
Despite the “wise” claims of Ezra Klein, the Constitution should be interpretable by any citizen.
@ crystal4?? It is my interpretation.??
It? just seems clear?that all rights are?at risk when the government (not just one party) disrespects the?very document, and its high ideals, that they swore to support and defend.? And I have yet to see a higer standard presented as a replacement for it.
They have forgotten the American people and the?balance of power is out of whack.??????
– As one of Jim’s callers said ” There’s plenty of R’s, D’s, lawyers & business folks in DC.? What we really need is some Americans.”?
Amen and Amen !
A cardinal was on CBS this morning, dismayed that the “assurances” and “promises” in his personal interview with ?bama were being dishonored.
?
Welcome to the club, Cardinal!