Obama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
File under: “How to fake a walkback.”
With its unconstitutional, coercive, discriminatory Obamacare abortion mandate under fire, the White House announced…nothing today. A supposed “accommodation” to the policy will result in no compromise in the impact of the HHS edict forcing religiously affiliated health care providers and employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and related services that violate the religious principles and freedom of the mandate’s targets.
In fact, close observers say today’s announcement will make things worse.
The deets:
With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups. The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.
Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.
White House officials are likening it to the so-called Hawaii compromise.
Phony baloney, say Catholic bishops:
It’s difficult to know what people may mean by the “Hawaii compromise.” But a central feature of the Hawaii law is that every religious organization that is eligible for the exemption has to instruct all employees in how they can access all methods of contraception and sterilization locally “in an expeditious manner.”
Just a few days ago the White House was saying that this is just about coverage, that no one has to be involved in getting people to the actual services they object to. It would be no improvement to say: “Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic.” The Administration’s press release of January 20 hinted at such a requirement.
That would not be a compromise. In some ways it would be worse.
As usual, this defiant administration keeps digging itself deeper.
***
The Hill calls Obama’s announcement a “retreat.”
The White House will announce a retreat from its controversial rule requiring religious organizations like charities and hospitals to include contraception in their healthcare plans.
President Obama has come under heavy criticism from the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, Republicans and even some Democrats over the issue, and Vice President Biden has suggested a compromise could be worked out.
A White House official on Friday confirmed an announcement on changing the rule would be made Friday. The White House is referring to the change as an accommodation.
It’s not a retreat. It’s a re-trick.
It’s not an accommodation. It’s an abomination.
***
Update 11am Weekly Standard reporter John McCormak is on a conference call with White House officials providing background on the policy head fake.
He tweets…
Sr. admin off.: “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity will be required to reach out” to women to provide contraception
So religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover contraception, and the abortion drug ella.
Reporter asks if WH even consulted bishops before announcing ‘accommodation.’ Sr admin official won’t say.
To clarify, religious groups have to contract with INSURERS who do offer the pills, then the insurers offers free pills to women.
Update 12:26pm EST – From his brief press conference, Obama attacks “cynical” opponents of abortion mandate. He says “principle” of “access to free preventative care including contraceptive services” will stand.
“Religious liberty will be protected.” Translation: You’re still screwed.
***
Update: On Fox News, Kathleen The Shredder Sebelius attempts to defend the policy as a “no-cost strategy” by citing “actuaries” who claim that contraceptive coverage will actually “save money.”
You know who she’s citing? The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
She repeatedly invokes “women’s health” to defend the edict.
Sanger’s grim reapers have the rhetoric down pat.
***
More from Steven Ertelt at Life News: Pro-Life Advocates Blast Revised Obama Pro-Abortion Mandate:
Jonathan Imbody, Vice President for Government Relations for the Christian Medical Association, called the revisions “offering a distinction without a difference to mute opposition.”
He said the revision fits a pattern of contempt for conscience that includes how Obama “has gutted the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care, denied of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion; lobbied the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations’ hiring rights; and issued a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government’s abortion ideology on every American.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Illinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsObamacare cronyism: The First Lady’s patient-dumping, privacy-meddling scheme
May 16, 2012 08:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsInsurers issuing new round of rebates must credit Obamacare
May 14, 2012 11:26 AM by Doug Powers
66 CommentsNY Senator: Honor Mother’s Day by supporting pro-abortion group
May 12, 2012 10:44 AM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
White House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
Categories: Abortion,Health care
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
Davey, you won’t win on this. I don’t care if you “get it” or not. You will not win.
This is as silly as saying a public school teacher who does not believe in evolution should be free to say whatever they want.
4:12 pm, Dave Turson said:
Non-members of a church/congregation needn’t meet the standards set by the leaders of a church.
Explain that jewel of wisdom please.
and this statement is wrong, twisted, etc. on so many levels…but that’s another thread.
Not sure how this turned into a discussion about religion. The fact that it is religious institutions is a DISTRACTION. It is the part of a math word problem that has nothing to do with the problem nor the equation to solve the problem.
The issue is the President mandating something and that what is mandated shall be “free”. This is a power grab and Obama attempting to usurp unconstitutional power.
He thought he could get away with it.
He didn’t.
This is not about being Catholic or being an athiest.
Focus…Focus…Focus….
“Non-members of a church/congregation needn’t meet the standards set by the leaders of a church.”
Makes sense to me. Why would I as a non-Catholic, non-Catholic congregation member care one wit about Catholic church leaders standards?
This is about a President who thinks he is the one who “allows” freedom.
Obama just made the choice between himself and the left and which ever Republican candidate makes it to November clear clear clear.
Rush makes the point of the bigger point and that is Obama’s attempt to usurp power.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/10/obama_didn_t_cave_on_the_hhs_mandate_he_s_making_an_unprecedented_power_grab
Nice, Ivan Drago.
It was, shall we say, politically inconvenient for Obama trampling the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion, so he decided that he, apparently without Congressional action, would just confiscate the wealth the insurance companies and use that to pay for what the Catholics didn’t want to pay.
And sadly, but predictably, I’m hearing Catholics welcoming this as a good effort on Obama’s part.
What was the date and time on the death certificate of America?
“What was the date and time on the death certificate of America?”
Except this ain’t over. The battle lines are just being drawn up on this issue.
Leaving it up to the Republicans in Congress won’t get it done.
The Archbishop has it right, take it to the streets. It will not get to Obama, but it will to the leftist that want to be re-elected.
That worked with Stupak and 30+ “Pro-life” Democrats. Why wouldn’t it work with less sophisticated Catholic Democrats?
Spot on! Part of the campaign early on must be educating voters (and non-voters as well) of what Obama has been doing in the past three years. It is not just enough to show what he has said and done, but how the longer term effects are very dangerous to their, and our, future liberty and freedom in everyday choices of life. Hit it hard and hit it often.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
An un-enumerated right trumps an un-enumerated right? Yeah, right.
/sarc off
Only in regressive la-la-land.
Actually, there is a precedent for this. Government mandated that phone companies and companies that sell cell phone service provide “basic” free cell phones or land lines to the indigent. They evidently think that Sen. McCaskill is poor – she was called and offered a free cell phone or land line. Needless to say, this “right” is frequently abused. And, yes, now that they have laid the legislative groundwork for this, if the individual mandate is upheld as constitutional, there will be no limit to what they can mandate we must purchase.
Sorry but have to get back to my real job. Scanning the delta quadrant for borg.
Am I the only person who doesn’t understand why any medical insurance policy should cover birth control? I thought medical insurance was supposed to cover the costs of treating illnesses and injuries. The idea of covering something that absolutely no one actually needs to be heathy, like contraception or elective cosmetic surgery, makes no sense to me.
As for our communist dictator’s “accomodation”, it is of course a total fraud. Nothing is free. The Catholic organizations’ insurance premiums have to include the costs of whatever the dictator commands the insurance company to give.
I am totally fed up with this evil bastard. If he gets re-elected, it means War as far as I’m concerned.
I have bee gone all day and don’t have time to read all the comments yet. I will try to cover them in the morning. In the meantime, here is my take on this. If I have repeated someone’s thoughts, I apologize.
1. Obama is not a Christian, he is an atheist.
2. Obama hates this country and he hates the Christian Right.
3. Anything Obama can do to give Christians the middle finger, he will do.
4. As long as Obama has the bully pulpit, he will use it dictatorially.
5. Obama hates the contraints of the Consitituion and is trying, piece by piece to trash it.
6. The Marxist-in-Chief and his evil assistants, including Pelosi, Sebelius, Jarrett, Mrs. Obama, the women who are pulling his anti-Catholic, anti-Life strings, will continue on this path until we kick their arses out of DC, and hopefully into a prison cell for treason.
That’s it for now. I apologize for the swoop and poop. Extremely busy day!!
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/insurers-stuck-cost-obama-birth-control-plan-003257037.html
Remember, just a short time ago, when you had group insurance at your job, the plan chosen by your employer? They picked the plan from a host of plans offered by numerous companies. They chose the plan they felt they could afford to offer their employees. Then, you applied for the job, were told about the benefits they offered, and you were free to accept or not. Any benefits not in the plan, you knew you would be paying for yourself. NO.BIG.DEAL.
Fast forward to Obamacare. We have barely begun scratching the surface of that boondoggle, and already we see the folly of allowing Big Government to DICTATE the coverage that private industry can offer their employees. Regardless of what the company can afford, regardless of the moral leanings of the company, regardless of the wishes of the individual employee…the government is now in the position to FORCE private companies to give the benefits that THE GOVERNMENT MANDATES. This is wrong on so many levels!!! And yet, people just blindly go along with this atrocity.
There will come a day…very soon now…when We The People will go on permanent strike against this government and say NO, HELL NO!! This is unconstitutional on so many levels, and if they get away with this, all will be lost.
“only person who doesn’t understand why any medical insurance policy should cover birth control?”
Its not a “should” or “shouldn’t” thing. Its what a person pays for based on what the policy covers. What it “should” cover is what it contractually agrees to and what holders of the policy pay for.
Having worked with the Amish, although not being Amish myself, I strongly suspect the Amish employer had only Amish employees who had the same religious views as he had. The Amish fellows I worked with did not have social security withheld from their paycheck that I am aware of. We spoke of that more than once. They utilized an exemption from what they told me. I am at a loss to explain the above when it comes to the citation you provided.
I was dumbfounded to see that you left Holder out of that list of helpers. Lol.
Have a great weekend, Happy!
Must correct myself.
What I had intended to say was this:
An un-enumerated right trumps an enumerated right?
No Wonder Valerie Jarrett used the pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church on Jan 15 before one of their Voter Registration drive to deliver a purely political partisan speech.
They knew this was coming and responded like a child ahead of time with another poke in the eye.
i realize that lawyers (in general) and judges (see lawyers) care more about precedent than the Constitution, but what about:
A law that prohibits the free exercise of religion is unconstitutional. Period.
Nope. It isn’t. Try reading the case law, as written by Tony Scalia.
It is amusing the blind spot people here have for Christian religion vs. other religions vis a vis the Constitution.
Let’s say…oh…I don’t know…Sharia law (duhn duhn duhhhhhhhn!) said that a Muslim employer could deny employees (whether Muslim or not) bathroom breaks because, in their religion, defecation during the hours of 9am to 5 pm was a mortal sin. Do you think conservatives would let that stand?
What about so-called “honor killings”?
Since the first rule of belonging to a union is to make sure your are sh!tting on company time, I’m not sure this is the best example to use, I could be wrong.
The courts have ruled that evolution is a theory (it is not a religious teaching) – thus teachers are required to teach it. I see the theory of evolution as a pseudoscience.
http://www.mnsci.org/index.php?id=56
Because it doesn’t infringe on a person’s rights to not pay for something they desire to have. It certainly does infringe on a person’s rights to kill them for violating your religious code.
I think you may be conflating perceived government discrimination with actual government intrusion, in which case the Smith decision doesn’t apply.
Obama’s supposed backtrack on the contraceptives mandate is yet another step towards single payer health care, and an attempt to create more division among Americans and religious factions in our country (blame the Catholics for not paying their “fair share” if your insurance rates go up to pay for their contraceptive coverage).
Like a school marm who punishes her entire class to pressure a guilty student who refuses to “fess up” and accept responsibility for his/her misdeeds, so Obama wants to punish all Americans for the Catholics’ misdeed of not accepting his latest assault against their church.
Catholics, please do not be fooled into accepting Obama’s faux “accommodation” as an about-face on his part, because it is not. This is also not about women’s health (poor women have easier access to contraceptives than others through medical cards and free clinics). It is about subordinating all free-will Americans and their religious institutions to the supreme authority of government.
And in his second term, which I have no doubt he will receive, he will be even more divisive, self-serving, and display even less respect for the US Constitution and American people.
We are in trouble.
Look at the Lee case I cite and which Smith uses as precedent. You are trying to create a distinction where there is none.
Oh, Chap…how you misunderstand where this issue is coming from!!
If you go to work for someone as their employee, I assume you are doing it voluntarily to earn money. Right?
So, if your employer says you would be committing a mortal sin by pooping during certain hours, and you don’t happen to agree, then why the hell would you work there? Last I heard, we are not FORCED to work for anyone. We enter into an agreement with our employer. In exchange for salary and (Possibly, but not always) benefits. The employer makes the rules. The employee abides by the. The employee accepts the job if the conditions and benefits are to his/her liking. If the benefits don’t include free contraceptives or abortion coverage, and you want that benefit, then you don’t take the job. Very simple.
The Catholics who run a business do not HAVE to sign on to benefits that go against their church’s moral teachings. However, once Obamacare is fully up and running, then yes, the Catholics WILL have to abide by what the Obamacare bill states because that massive bill became law.
And that, in a nutshell, is why it MUST be overturned. It robs us of our dignity, our freedom of choice, our freedom of religion, this bill is the biggest threat to our Democratic Society we have ever faced.
We passed the bill. Now people are starting to actually find out what is in it. We The People will not allow a dicator to come in here and enslave us. It is not in the DNA of Americans to accept this quietly. This will not end well…for the socialists who think they have us under some kind of control. They are morons if they believe that.
Sorry for the rant. But this is really ridiculous! We are NOT Russia! We are NOT Europe!! We are NOT Iraq!! We are the sons and daughters of Pilgrims, Patriots and Pioneers who forged this country. Read history, study it, then get back to me how you think we will take this lying down.
Catholics are not fooled. It is the church rulers that have an agenda. They knew that Obama was pro-abortion. When they came out with their Catholic voting points, they stressed that we should consider who can overall do the most good (which in their mind favored Obama). After the Obama pro-abortion agenda became official, the Church Bishops then stated that protection of the unborn was a dominant priority. Its all doublespeak, like Obama’s speeches.
There is a reason why Catholics lose faith in the Catholic rulers, but maintain faith in their church. All you can do is pray that after denying reality three times the Bishops go on to form a stronger church presence and follow church principles.
I just had a scary thought. These people are using birth control as a “Health Care” issue.
They are forcing companies to provide free birth control.
How soon will it be before they just go ahead and force women to get birth control?
How about looking at my response to your citation.
I’m sorry. What response, exactly?
What if Obama and his Admin. backed completely off this stance on contraception and “women’s health”?
He could say hey I see your point and
you don’t need to provide contraception, abortion, and sterilization, it’s against your faith and I understand that now.
That’s not what this is about though. It is the idea of the government taking control of the health care field.
Mandating what they want done.
Very soon indeed. That is the plan.
To clarify: Obamacare – it’s a living nightmare that’s eating away our economic and political freedoms … and if independent Catholic voters in the swing states give-in on this first of the many more mandates to come (“we have to
passimplement it to know what’s in it”), then we are truly beyond salvation.Catholic voters in the swing states could make all the difference this fall, as to whether or not we continue down this path of destructive “change” or return to sanity.
Don’t give up, Catholics – our religious freedoms are too precious to surrender!
Leftists always condemn anyone who disagrees with them. And would throw them in prison if they had the power to do so.