We the People- Election 2012

We the People...
     ...Not  individuals, but a whole. Not a collective, but a group of people with a common goal.

...in order to form a more perfect Union...
     ...Not absolutely perfect- more perfect. We know there's work to do along they way, and that's OK.

...establish justice...
     ...Justice. That doesn't mean everything is fair to everyone. It does mean common sense and common decency and that every human being is treated equally under the law. But remember: equal does not mean the same.
 
...ensure domestic tranquility...
     ... This does not happen with leadership bent on creating division among the people at every possible turn. There can be no domestic tranquility when people racially stereotype themselves to play on others' consciences. There can be no domestic tranquility when people of faith are demonized because of that faith. There can be no domestic tranquility when those who have worked hard and accumulated wealth are demonized because they- GASP- have worked hard and accumulated wealth. (We can be a tad snarky about inherited wealth. I'll give us that one :-) )
 
...provide for the common defense...
     ... Common defense, the defense of all human life. From the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Without exception. Without compromise. Without apology. Sometimes that means war. I'm a very proud US Air Force Mom, so I understand that. You're welcome.
 
...promote the general welfare...
     ... Again, the best for all involved. This does not mean a re-distribution of wealth. It does not mean forcing people to act against their deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise. It does not mean policing what people put on their plates. I does mean acting in the best interest of the society as a whole. It means making sure that those who possess the talent for college can find a way to pay for it, not discriminating against middle-class students while giving a free ride to others, simply because their skin is darker or they are 'disadvantaged.' Not everyone is college material, not everyone should go to college. It means basic medical care at affordable prices- NOT taxing everyone else to death to pay for it. It doesn't mean murdering children because they will be born disabled, or poor- or a girl. It does not mean dispensing Class- A carcinogens to 15 year-old girls without their parents' knowledge and calling it 'healthcare.' It does not mean promoting destructive lifestyles and calling them 'normal.' It does not mean re-defining the basic unit of all society and calling it 'progress.' Above all, it does not mean vilifying anyone who holds traditional beliefs by calling them a racist, homophobe, misogynist, or -heaven forbid- a Jesus freak. Ok, we'll wear that last one with pride. 
 
...and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity...
     ... Isn't funny-sad that the first liberty given to us by the Constitution...the very reason so many people came to this land in the first place... is the first one to be so boldly challenged that it could become extinct? If we lose the freedom to practice our religion how we see fit, if the government seizes the power to come in and tell us what we can and cannot do in terms of our relationship with Almighty God.... I don't know how to finish that sentence, because every option that has crossed my mind scares the hell out of me. All I can think is ---If we lose Freedom of Religion, what's next? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of assembly?

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.  
     ...For nearly 230 years, our Constitution has been the blueprint for freedom. I cannot believe how it has been abused in my lifetime. From an imaginary 'right to privacy' that somehow allowed for the legalized murder of a child in the womb, to forcing the entire working population to pay for something many do not want under the federal government's taxing authority, to the whole idea of the judiciary on every level creating legislation from the bench in violation of separation of powers... I am floored. I cannot believe how many people care so little for our country that they place their personal agendas above the good of the country as a whole. 
     As Catholics, we faced persecution for a long time in this land. We hear stories every day of the persecution and martyrdom of Christians around the world. We are next.
     Buckle up. The time for our complacency has ended; the time to act is now. The 2012 election was not a defeat, it was a wake-up call. Our bishops are united- when's the last time THAT happened? The next year may radically change not only our country, but our Catholic Church in our country.

It scares me. I admit it.  

We may see an end to Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic charitable work. But that is what this government wants. They want the Catholic Church to go away. We are a thorn in their side, and boy- do we make them look bad!

We educate over 2 MILLION children in our primary and secondary schools. One in five patients are cared for in Catholic hospitals. I can't even begin to guess how many millions of people receive help in the form of food, clothing, shelter and counseling from Catholic social service agencies. And we do it far more efficiently and less expensively than the federal government could ever hope. We are their competition because when we heal, educate, feed, clothe and shelter people...well, the government doesn't get to. They don't get people depending on THEM for help- which is exactly what they want... to ever so slowly take the fiercely independent people of the United States and turn every last one of us dependent on mother country for everything we need.

It is a sad fact that over half of self-reported Catholics voted to keep this administration. But think about that. How many people do you know who call themselves Catholics, yet we see them at Mass only twice a year?  Something has changed for the better: our Protestant brothers and sisters are united with us. Heck we even have NON- Protestants like Glenn Beck (fallen-away Catholic, practicing Mormon) and Mike Huckabee ( Baptist- they do not consider themselves Protestant)...saying WE ARE ALL CATHOLICS NOW.   

That is a really bold statement. In a way, we should thank Mr. Obama. He has given the faithful Catholics- and other Christians- of this country an opportunity to educate the general public on the dangers of artificial contraception and abortion- and infringement on religious freedom. We can be out there- loud and proud- and speak the truth. Truth they have no defense against, save "it's a woman right to choose." A disgusting, weak platitude with nothing to back it. 

So, in closing, thank you, Mr Obama. You have united faithful Catholics. You have brought our separated brethren closer to us in our defense. You have given us a chance to share our faith in a very public forum. You have made for us the opportunity to stand up boldly for our faith in an unprecedented manner. 

I pray we do not waste what you have so generously provided.

May Our Lady spread her mantle over our country under her titles of the Immaculate Conception, Patroness of the United States and Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Unborn.  Amen.

 

The HHS Mandate- What It Is and Why YOU Should Care

Isn't it funny...the people who tell the Catholic Church to stay out of their bedrooms are the same people who want the Church to pay for the paraphernalia for what they are doing in their bedrooms.  

This is NOT about an employer forcing an employee to do anything. The items in question are easily and cheaply available. This is about the government forcing employers to provide free to their employees items which are contrary to their deeply- held religious beliefs. We are talking about drugs that kill unborn children ( which is one way hormone-based contraception works; abortion drugs are mega-doses of hormonal contraceptives). We are talking about hormonal contraceptives which are considered Class One carcinogens by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. ( look toward the bottom of page 2 )
They include:
Estrogen therapy, postmenopausal
Estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy (combined)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives

Yeah.... Cancer-causing drugs really sound like health care.....

In January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a mandate under the Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare”) that requires all employer health plans to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of any moral or religious objections.  

From: http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/docs/HHSMandateFactSheet.pdf

This means that every single employer- all of them- will be REQUIRED to offer health insurance coverage that covers contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs at ZERO cost to employees. 

The religious exemption that President Obama promised? That only covers employers that meet ALL of the following conditions:

1. EMPLOY primarily members of their own faith
2. SERVE primarily members of their own faith
3. EXIST primarily to spread their own faith
4. NON-PROFIT STATUS per the IRS

As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput (shaa-PEW) so wisely noted, "Under this view, Jesus and his disciples would have been deemed not religious enough."

This means that the many non-Catholic employees of Catholic Hospitals, schools, parishes, and charities would be at risk for losing their jobs.

Can you imagine needing to present your baptismal certificate to be treated in the ER of a Catholic hospital?

But- WAIT- since the purpose of a hospital is not to spread the faith, IT DOESN'T QUALIFY as a religious institution!

What are the consequences if a religious institution does not qualify under the exemption rules and refuses to provide the required coverage? The fine is $100 PER DAY, PER EMPLOYEE. That's right $36,500 a year per employee.

For doing what is right.

As a side note, Obamacare has no provisions to add any doctors for the 30 million new covered patients (still leaving 26 million without any insurance coverage), but will add thousands of  IRS agents to collect those fines!

It's only fair, according to some....
According to Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, however, the Obamacare mandate is not a tax, although she told CNN the IRS would be the most effective enforcer.

“This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs,” she told Wolf Blitzer. “We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be,” she warned.

Sigh. 

Now, you may say, in February, the President announced an 'accommodation' for religious groups! Do you know what is was? The EMPLOYER would not pay for the above-mentioned-unacceptable-items, but the INSURANCE companies will!  Isn't that nice!!

But what about the self-insured Catholic employer- the Diocese of Toledo, for example? Well, since they ARE the insurer, they have to pay! 

The most eloquent and easy-to-understand explanation I have seen belongs to Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT, who testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. It is below in its entirety, and well worth your time to read it.

Here’s Bishop Lori’s testimony as submitted to the Committee:

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant.

The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.

 Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them.

And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches.

Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.

Thank you for your attention.

******

Wasn't that great? So....should a religious employer- or any employer for that matter- be required to have its health insurance pay for services that are morally unacceptable to the employer?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Not in a free country.

Not in a country which has the First Freedom listed in its Constitution, FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Not in America.

Ever.