Boehner: Rescind Contraception Mandate Entirely So Catholic Individuals—as Well as Institutions—Are Not Forced to Act Against Faith

From: CNSnews.com

House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday told CNSNews.com through his spokesman that it is his position that the Obama administration’s regulation ordering that all health-care plans must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, should be rescinded in its entirety so that neither Catholic individuals, nor Catholic business owners, nor Catholic insurers, nor Catholic institutions will be forced by the federal government to act against the teachings of the Catholic faith.

Boehner also specifically indicated he is leaving "on the table" the option of inserting language into future federal spending bills to prohibit the administration from using any money to implement the regulation.

Much of the press coverage on the controversy over the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate has erroneously presented it as a conflict between America’s Catholic bishops and the administration over the question of whether the administration will expand the “religious-employer” exemption in the current version of the regulation so that the exemption will apply to Catholic institutions such as hospitals, universities and charitable organizations.

For example, citing aides to President Barack Obama, a Wednesday New York Times article presented the issue this way.

“As the Republican presidential candidates and conservative leaders sought to frame the rule as showing President Obama's insensitivity to religious beliefs, Mr. Obama's aides promised to explore ways to make it more palatable to religious-affiliated institutions,” the Times reported.

''We certainly don't want to abridge anyone's religious freedoms, so we're going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,'' the Times quoted Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod as telling MSNBC.

But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and lay Catholic leaders have repeatedly made clear that the regulation violates the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion not only of Catholic institutions but also of individuals, employers and insurers--Catholic or otherwise--who have a religious objection to sterilization, contraception, or abortion.

“Finally, as applied to individuals and organizations with a religious objection to contraceptives, sterilization, and related counseling and education, the HHS mandate violates various protections under the Religion Clauses and Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told HHS in comments on the regulation submitted last August.

“The exemption provides no protection at all for individuals or insurers with a moral or religious objection to contraceptives or sterilization, who will experience burdens to conscience under this new mandate,” said the bishops. “Instead, it provides protection only to employers with similar objections, and even then to a very small subset of religious employers.”

“By failing to protect insurers, individuals, most employers, or any other stakeholders with a religious objection to such items and procedures, the HHS exemption, like the mandate itself, violates the First Amendment and the APA,” the bishops said.

“In sum, we urge HHS to rescind the mandate in its entirety,” they said. “Only rescission will eliminate all of the serious moral problems the mandate creates.”

On Wednesday, House Speaker Boehner gave a speech on the House floor saying that Congress “must” act to counter the administration’s regulation and that the matter was going to be taken up by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight over the Health and Human Services Department. In his speech, however, Boehner spoke of the regulation only insofar as it effects “faith-based employers.”

“This rule would require faith-based employers--including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals-- to provide services they believe are immoral,” Boehner said. “Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception.”

Following the speech, CNSNews.com sent Boehner Spokesman Michael Steel two questions to clarify whether the speaker’s position was that Congress should act to protect only faith-based employers from this regulation, or also individuals, private businessmen, and insurers. Also, CNSNews.com asked if the speaker believed that the House should put language in future spending bills prohibiting the administration from using federal money to implement the regulation.

Spokesman Steel said the answer to the first question was “yes.” To the second question, Steel said “all options are on the table.”

Specifically, CNSNews.com asked: “Is it your position, Mr. Speaker, that the House should pass legislation before Aug. 1 that in keeping with the position of the U.S. Catholic bishops entirely rescinds the HHS sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation so that not only Catholic institutions (such as hospitals, universities and charitable organizations) are protected from being forced by the government to act against the teachings of the Catholic faith, but that Catholic individuals, business owners and insurers are also protected from being forced by the government to act against the teachings of their faith?

Spokesman Steel responded: “Yes, it is the position of the speaker to act to rescind this rule that violates religious freedom before Aug 1.”

Then, CNSNews.com asked: “Is it your position, Mr. Speaker, that if the House Republicans fail to persuade the Senate and President Obama to enact legislation this year entirely rescinding the HHS sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation, that the House should put language in the appropriate fiscal 2013 funding bills prohibiting the administration from implementing this regulation?”

Steel responded: “All options are on the table whether it be stand alone legislation, amendments or limitation of funds provisions.”

An Angry Boehner Yells To White House ‘Put Something On The Table!’

A Note To Congressional Republicans: Read Our Lips, No New Taxes

So, the political chattering class is aghast that Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl have walked out of the Biden negotiations on the debt ceiling. Unless this is posturing to us the conservative "wingnuts" they have done the right thing. It is at this time I want to remind everyone of a little history.

We all remember George H.W. Bush's "no new tax" pledge. We all remember him breaking the promise. Most objective observers on all sides concede his re election had he not broken that pledge. Why did he break it? Because of our debt and annual deficits. He was conned by the Democrats into believing they would cut spending if he agreed to the tax increases. He agreed and broke his pledge. The tax increases were on the front end of the five year budget he signed off on and the bulk of the proposed spending cuts were on the back end of the five year budget outlay.

The Democrats subsequent to this agreement used Bush's broken pledge to defeat him and elect Bill Clinton. They succeeded and then promptly reneged on the spending cuts. Game.Set.Match.SUCKER!!!!!!!!

The prospect of some kind of tax increase in any agreement has been looming for a while. Personally, I'm of the belief that every budget approved is littered however marginally with tax increases or fees so in the end most members have voted for increases even if nominal in size. The statement today by Max Baucus that there must be a one to one ratio on cuts and tax increases is blatantly political at the expense of potential fiscal insolvency. It's dramatically less than the unappealing "Deficit Commission" that proposed a 3-1 cut to increase ratio.
 
I am absolutely confident that Congressional Republicans will not vote for this absurd proposition. Boehner is correct that they don't have the votes. Even if I thought Boehner was sympathetic to the proposal it would be his end politically. Moreover, Democrats would do to any tax increasing Republicans what they did to Bush 41 and use it to defeat them in 2012 as a wedge to get back the majority. Does anyone think they would follow through on the promised spending cuts if they reemerged in the majority after running against pledge breaking Republicans? No cuts and more spending. One more giant step into oblivion.

The stakes are too high to get weak kneed in the wake of partisan Presidential politics. Obama is betting he get enough squishy Repubs who don't want to be blamed for a "default" will cave as the pressure mounts. Wait and see, but I've got a feeling they all know they're being played for sucker. Obama is playing with fire and we must keep our guys' feet to the fire. We can win this on the merits and achieve a public relations victory if we have the courage now as George Bush did not over twenty years ago. No new taxes.Not now.Not in a recession.Not when investors are afraid to invest.Not when the American people are willing to scale back Big Brother. To Congressional Republicans: Read our Lips, No New Taxes.

A Great Rebuttal To Boehner’s Catholic Critics

From: National Review Online

By Fr. Robert A. Sirico

Speaker of the House John Boehner, a practicing Catholic, is scheduled to deliver the May 14 commencement address to the graduating class of the Catholic University of America (full disclosure: my alma mater). Now a group of Catholic academics, largely from Catholic University, have released what boils down to a theological/moral critique of the Ohio Republican’s voting record and, implicitly, his view of the state’s role in the economy.

The authors, who are drawn from multiple disciplines outside moral theology and include academics from architecture, media, social work, theatre, and dance departments from across the United States, say that the speaker’s voting record “is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings.”

Now what could that be? The Church’s teaching that marriage consists of one man and one woman for life? The Church’s insistence upon the need to legally protect unborn human life? Probably not, because Speaker Boehner has, from an orthodox Catholic standpoint, an excellent record on those questions, especially compared to his predecessor.

They go on: “From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor.”

Catholic Professors Outraged At John Boehner

Left Wing hypocrites

From: American Thinker

A gaggle of professors at Catholic universities have written a letter to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner criticizing his attempts to restore sanity to the federal budget on the grounds that it hurts the poor. Boehner, who is Catholic, was sharply reprimanded by these ivory tower academics as uncharitable, unchristian, and generally courting the 'tarnal flames.

According to Politico:

"Dozens of Catholic professors sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, a Catholic, asking him to rethink the GOP budget that they say disproportionately harms the poor and accused him of holding a voting record at odds with the church's teachings.

"Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress," the academics wrote in the letter. "This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policymakers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it."

The scholars said the House Republicans' fiscal 2012 budget, which passed with no Democratic support in April, was "particularly cruel" to pregnant women and children by slashing funds for maternal and child-health programs.

"The House budget radically cuts Medicaid and effectively ends Medicare," they wrote. "It invokes the deficit to justify visiting such hardship upon the vulnerable, while it carves out $3 trillion in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy."

Well, well, well; where were these oh so righteous defenders of the faith when Nancy Pelosi threw a direct challenge at the authority of Rome over abortion? She did not receive a similar letter, yet her sins were more egregious; Catholics are required to believe abortion is the sin of murder, whereas Catholics are not required to believe that government social programs are an irreplaceable part of Christian charity. The double standard here is galling.

Christian charity is built originally on Old Testament charity, and it is predicated on a number of statements of Jesus. Jesus instituted the corporal works of mercy in Matthew 25:

34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'