Lessons From Barack Obama's Catholic Betrayal

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Obama a;ways has a safe condom over his head!

Anyone Else in 2012 of WI 7:17PM February 24, 2012

This issue is about government trying to say I'll give you money if you do what I say, True. The point of tax-exempt status is that they are charities and their for given money to do with as they will. As long as what they do is what they say they claim they will do; then what they do should not be dictated by the person donating the money.
The idea about the child was an example of the differences between Obama and Santorum keeping to what they say they will do. What it is not is a matter of pro-life vs pro-choice but the fact that they had been told that they were to be exempt from the heavy hand of Obamacare and then on national TV he said that they would not be.

Asra Nolan of TN 3:13AM February 22, 2012

"We discussed the fact that President Obama's proposed approach on healthcare might keep a Bella Santorum from ever being born."
Contraception? Really? Wrong number! try again. You are using the late term abortion argument on the wrong topic.

BG of DC 3:51PM February 18, 2012

Perhaps mosques should be required to support universal bacon supplements. Just because they don't use bacon in their own life does not mean they should not have to pay for my bacon. Perhaps we should occupy Hormel until we all get our rightful free bacon. How can they deny me bacon? Last I checked many women liked bacon too, so is this not a women's issue. When women share bacon with a man, it often leads to the need for contraception as well. What a thorny issue....

Harry Reasoner of MA 10:45PM February 16, 2012

what garbage! The Catholic Churches care for the Poor. It is all about the huge profits amassing to the Bishops in running their own hospitals and self-insurance profits on insuring their employees. How many hospitals ,as opposed to churches, have they sold to pay for pedophilia settlements? Care for the poor-that is sham political statement.

John of NH 3:40PM February 16, 2012

Annoyed:
This is not a question about an individuals conscience as you want to assert - it is a question about the legality of the government forcing a religion to do something that it considers immoral. The Constitution is pretty clear about where it stands on this issue.
Whether or not an individual Catholic wants to use contraceptives is solely their private issue to deal with - they are always free to work else where or to purchase such insurance coverage on their own - it is NOT the role of the government to force the Vatican to provide and pay for something it considers murder.
And whether or not you or I agree with their (the Vatican) stance on that is irrelevant to the subject.

junior of DC 1:12PM February 16, 2012

Please stop confusing the issue... It's not about the Catholic Church, certainly not about American Catholics, except for the old, celibate (quasi) men who care noting about women's health.
And it is about federal funding - these institutions (which are not churches, by the way) accept federal funds AND are tax-exempt, yet do not want to provide full medical coverage to women who work or attend these institutions, which is wrong. Many of these women are not even Catholic, yet have to abide by some bishop's medieval idea of birth control.
And to bring up some sad story of a child who was born ill and passed too soon is wrong. And as touching as that story is about how loving the parents were and how much his short life affected people, you don't mention the suffering that poor child had to endure for his 3 months of life. Is your warm fuzzy feeling really worth his suffering?

Ed of NY 12:48PM February 16, 2012

You just don’t get it; the power grab is the government telling what must be covered. I would like more coverage in my insurance for some items, but the coverage offered is my employers’ choice. No one is denying the Catholic institutions employees birth control, the question is whose responsibility is it to pay for it? My point about if you don’t pay for me a gun, are you denying my constitutional rights, is it my right and my responsibility or my right and someone else’s responsibility? I have no problem with birth control; I have a problem with King Obama mandating private and religious groups. The government should be there to see that insurance companies uphold their part of a contract, but not to mandate what that contract should be.

kewaal of GA 11:12AM February 16, 2012

What about the conscience of the workers, the 98% of Catholic women who use contraception and would LIKE their birth control covered?
I have worked in NPO Catholic healthcare for years and while I find their ethics head and shoulders above my counterparts in for profit healthcare, it is not fair to the workers in these institutions to be handed down declarations from above when for the most part they are Catholic in name only. The majority of the nurses I work with are not Catholic and there is no discussion about the option to choose your health coverage.
I support the President and so do most people I know and with whom I work. This whole issues is about the Bishops trying to do yet another power grab. I am a faithful Catholic but there are far more important matters at hand on which they could focus their attention.
Am I the only one to notice this is a power struggle among men, who are not even taking the pill? There are bigger issues to worry about than my healthcare and reproductive choices.

Annoyed Catholic of MO 10:47AM February 16, 2012

Once again Jim, the question is who is to pay for someone’s rights. My solution is since our Economic Idiot in Chief thinks he mandate for someone or some group to provide someone’s want for free, to have him mandate that Planned Parenthood must provide contraception and abortion for free, after all they are a nonprofit and should be happy to do this, right? Unlike the evil for profit insurance companies. I bet if that suggestion were made Planned Parenthood and all liberals would be screaming that PP would have to shut down because they could not afford to provide that for free. But somehow insurance companies should be able to. Liberal hypocrisy, you think? Now back to no one’s rights being stepped on except either the Catholic Organizations if they were forced to offer something they did not believe in or the insurance companies by being forced to cover a service at no charge: We do have the right to bear arms, it is spelled out in the constitution. Now does that mean if you do not buy me a gun, you are denying me my constitutional rights? This is the problem with liberals, they think if they have a right to something that means it should be supplied by someone else.

kewaal of GA 9:28AM February 16, 2012