In Case Anyone is Wondering . . .

Neither Romney nor Obama are in any way defenders of the Church or even the common good.

Romney pretends to care about unborn babies but then immediately turns around and brags about supporting contraception and abortion in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life may be threatened. Because women must have “options” when it comes to whether or not they can kill their unborn children. Romney has also made it very clear that there exists absolutely zero abortion legislation that he would consider making a part of his agenda. Also, during the last presidential debate, instead of calling Obama out on violations to religious liberties Romney instead vouched for employing the exact same kind of class warfare, war against women rhetoric that Obama himself has used in support of infringements against religious liberties, stating: “I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” Employers shouldn’t force people to buy or not buy contraceptives. But that’s not what the HHS Mandate is about and that is not what was being discussed before Romney threw this red herring out to distract from the real issue of religious liberties and freedom of conscience.

Obama on the other hand, is hell bent on forcing anyone who disagrees with him to do things that they find morally repugnant or pay astronomical, prohibitionary fines if they don’t. Obama has even explicitly stated that the HHS Mandate which provides “free” contraceptives as well as sterilization and abortifacients at the expense of people morally opposed to such practices is “why we passed this law.” The Evangelical family that owns Hobby Lobby is suing over the HHS Mandate and, as a result of their defiance, the Oklahoma outfit faces fines of $1.3 million a day simply because they do not want to pay and provide for a practice that is irreconcilable with their religious beliefs and code of ethics.

At the end of the day, the sad truth is that no matter how much either candidate talks about how they care about children, or women, or the poor their actions instead suggest that all either candidate really cares about is himself and how to expand his own power. Anyone who gets in the way of that can expect to be trampled.


Turns Out Romney Isn’t the Only One Who Lies

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops responds to an “inaccurate statement of fact on HHS Mandate made during Vice Presidential Debate”:

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution—Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital—none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

Give Up Your Religion or Give Up Your Business

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare and its mandate that employers buy health insurance that include coverage of contraception, abortifacients and sterilization many Catholics, who recognize birth control as morally reprehensible, have been put in a position where they must choose between practicing their faith or running their business. Such is the case for the Newland family.

( – The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado–who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business–with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.

“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: “[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”

The Newland family’s refusal to comply with the birth control mandate means that they will be forced to pay $26,500 per day and $9,672,500 a year simply for practicing their faith and refusing to buy products they find morally wrong and that aren’t even related to healthcare. The CNS article continues:

The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.

In its brief responding to the Justice Department on behalf of the Newland family, the Alliance Defending Freedom forcefully rebutted the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations let alone to family-owned businesses.

“The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.

“Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.

I’ve had several people try to kindly explain to me that this in no way violates the Newland’s rights because their religion does not compel them to run a business and that the birth control mandate does not “force” them to violate their religion because they can simply give up their business. So, as Americans we’re entitled to either a right to freedom of religion or a right to property but not both, now? I guess imprisoning the Newland family for practicing their faith wouldn’t violate their religious rights either. If they can simply pay ten million dollars a year or give up their livelihoods entirely then they can just as simply walk into a prison cell. If the Department of Justice does not view an ultimatum forcing someone to choose between their faith and their business (read: how people make a living and put food on the table and a roof over their heads) as a “burden” then I doubt that they would view being incarcerated in a comfy cell with three meals a day as particularly burdensome either.

I believe that the birth control mandate and Obamacare do violate our rights but even if you think that this mandate is perfectly consistent with our constitution and laws the fact is that Obama’s healthcare scheme requiring individuals to purchase a product that they don’t want and penalizing them out of existence if they do not comply is classic corporate fascism. Obamacare is nothing more than big government and big business working hand-in-hand against the citizenry, where government forces the people to purchase things from businesses whether they want it or not. If Obamacare is constitutional then our constitution embraces a corporate fascist regime. Of course, anyone who’s ever actually read our founders knows that this is not what they intended. In fact, this is the very kind of totalitarian state that they meant to protect us from.

If you’re not convinced that we live in a progressively fascist state then consider the following: Our president has given himself the power to indefinitely detain any American citizen via the NDAA bill and, while that power has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, a bill has been proposed, the Enemy Expatriation Act, which would render such a ruling irrelevant by granting the authority to strip any American of his citizenship on the same subjective and shaky grounds that the NDAA operates by; we also now have Predator drones flying over North Dakota; and our police force has been systematically militarized across the nation.

Nazi Concordat Had Broader Religious Exemption Than HHS Mandate

At The Turn of the Tide writes about how the fascist Nazi party was more lenient towards the religiously opposed Catholic church than is the modern-day Obama administration:

An interesting little historical note.  The proposed HHS mandate on contraception includes a narrow religious exemptioneven under the recently announced accommodation.  Excerpts:

…The mandate includes a limited religious exemption that only applies to non-profit organizations that exist to inculcate religious values and that serve and employ primarily members of their own faith.  The narrow scope of the exemption sparked outcry because most religious groups and even some churches would fail to qualify for it…

The 1933 concordat between Germany and the Holy See, the result of negotiations with the Weimar Republic and concluded after the Nazis were voted into power, had the following clause included:

Those Catholic organizations and societies which pursue exclusively charitable, cultural or religious ends, and, as such, are placed under the ecclesiastical authorities, will be protected in their institutions and activities.

Those Catholic organizations which to their religious, cultural and charitable pursuits add others, such as social or professional interests, even though they may be brought into national organizations, are to enjoy the protection of Article 31, Section I, provided they guarantee to develop their activities outside all political parties.

Now, as we all know, the Nazis violated the concordat time and again whenever they felt like it–but it’s still…I dunno, odd? Telling? That the Catholic Church was able to get such a thing in writing from the Nazis, but not from the current administration.

For more on the Church, Pope Pius XII, and the Nazis, see here. And the former director of the the International Affairs Department of the Anti-Defamation League discusses Pius XII and the Jews here.

The Abortioneers: Deadbeat Dads are “Great Advocates” for Abortion

After decades of evolution, the pro-abortion movement has reached another logical conclusion. In addition to creating a culture open to infanticide, abortionists are recognizing, and embracing, one of their greatest allies: deadbeat dads.

Straight from The Abortioneers on why, after decades spent devaluing men’s opinion, men now need to speak up on abortion:

In my own personal life, I’ve noticed sympathy from men and the odd Facebook mention of how lame this whole thing is, but not a whole lot of activity from well-wishing men who themselves would probably really like to prevent pregnancy. Which is odd, because at the end of the day, aren’t men really more pro-no-babies than women anyway? Think about it! How many women have we heard from in clinics or on hotlines, who simply can’t get the time of the day from their baby daddies? Don’t you think these men, deadbeats though they may be, would make great advocates for increased access to contraception? Even if just to keep their pregnant partners off their backs?

But shouldn’t deadbeat dads be enemy number one to feminism? I mean, how much more anti-woman can you get? Deadbeat dads use women for their own selfish needs but when there are consequences to their actions, the woman gets pregnant and she has needs of her own the man’s response is to duck and run. Is promoting contraception really more important than having men who respect women?

No, argues the abortioneers, the answer is not for the prospective deadbeat dads of the world to behave responsibly themselves, to grow up and act maturely, or to embrace the commitment that comes with a sexual relationship. No, the answer is more access to contraception . . . which is a strange argument for the pro-abortion movement to make since, according to their own research, supposedly more than 99% aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.

I guess not even the abortionists believe their own rhetoric anymore. But while The Abortioneers are busy talking up the “silent suffering” of deadbeat dads, I’m more concerned about the silent suffering of the fathers who love and want their unborn children but are forced to stand by helplessly when their child is killed. Where is their voice? While these men often welcomed by pro-lifers they have been shunned by the pro-choice crowd. What choice did they have in the future of their children?

Well, Abortioneers, you asked for men to speak up and I’m a man. Contrary to your projection of men, I’m very pro-baby and I am pro-life: from the moment of conception to the point of natural death. And I’m not alone.

Gloria Purvis: HHS Mandate is Anti-Woman

Gloria Purvis, a young, black woman – precisely the demographic the Democratic party caters to and claims to be the staunch defenders of – has choice words for the Obama administration and the HHS mandate, which forces all insurance companies to provide contraception to everyone and without copay:


Obama Wants You to Believe Women Support the HHS Mandate . . .

. . . but Mickey Kaus points out an inconvenient truth:

Caught cocooning in public: Here’s what the NYT‘s story on its latest poll told readers:

In recent weeks, there has been much debate over the government’s role in guaranteeing insurance coverage for contraception, including for those who work for religious organizations. The poll found that women were split as to whether health insurance plans should cover the costs of birth control and whether employers with religious objections should be able to opt out. [E.A.]

If the Times says women were “split,” you know that must mean they were actually narrowly against the NYT‘s preferred position. Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?” women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive 53-38  for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university.”

That’s among women. Unbeknownst to those who read only the Times‘ main story, the poll asked the same question to men. They were not split. Men favored opting out by a 20 point margin (57 vs. 37), except when a “religiously affiliated employer” was involved, in which case the margin increased to 25 points. Combining men and women, a substantial majority (51-40) favors allowing an opt-out–increasing to 57-36 where religiously-affiliated institutions are involved.

These are not close results. It’s hard to read this poll and not conclude that, contrary to some accounts, Obama wasn’t such a genius to pick a fight over mandated contraception coverage–because he appears to be losing the public debate on the question. That’s a conclusion the Times story effectively hides from readers.

It’s also one possible explanation for Obama’s otherwise somewhat mystifying overall drop in approval during the period–March 7-11–when the poll was in the field. But not an approved explanation.

Gas prices are the official MSM explanation. Got it? Gas prices.

Oops, turns out American women don’t want people to be forced to pay for contraception. Women don’t want federal mandates, apparently, they want options – including options for those with religious objections. That sounds very reasonable to me . . . but considering that politicians and bureaucracy are reason-intolerant I’m quite sure that they will continue to ignore the voice of America’s women and continue to push their own agenda for as long as possible.

Which means that if you oppose the HHS mandate then you need to do something about it – because the Obama administration isn’t going to voluntarily rescind the mandate unless they come under intense popular pressure. If we allow our government to openly violate the religious freedom of those who oppose contraception then we risk a government with free reign to violate the rights of all Americans. This is your fight, take a stand:

Click the image to find out more about what you can do.

On a related note, Obama’s approval rating since February to now has dropped 4 percentage points among men and 12 among women. Either the women of America are really, really into gasoline, way more than men, or there’s another explanation for the drop in Obama’s approval ratings . . . perhaps something related specifically to women, like women’s health? Theories welcome. Also interesting, Obama’s rating according to the NYT/CBS poll has fallen in every single category except for . . . wait for it . . . those making over $75,000 a year in which is rose slightly. I’m genuinely curious about what explanations Obama’s supporters can provide as to why this is so. Personally, I think people are just sick of an economic policy that rewards the rich CEOs of failing businesses with big fat stimulus checks and forces more and more of the poor to become wards of the state.