Posted on 01/04/2014 2:34:12 PM PST by grundle
Though he’s had plenty of opportunities to compromise on his overreaching contraceptive mandate, President Obama has defiantly refused them all. Now he’s fighting a group of nuns in US Supreme Court.
The nuns are the Little Sisters of the Poor, and they run nursing homes for the elderly. The Little Sisters argue they should not be forced to offer coverage that violates their religious convictions.
The Obama argument is astounding. The gist is that the nuns really aren’t religious enough to qualify for the church exemption. The administration backs up that position with hefty fines for the Little Sisters if they don’t cave. For example, just for their home in Denver, where there are 67 employees, it could run to $6,700 a day. That’s money the Little Sisters simply don’t have.
Hours before she rang in the New Year here in Times Square, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — one of Obama’s own picks — issued a ruling enjoining the Obama administration from enforcing its mandate on the Little Sisters, and on Friday accepted papers from both sides explaining their positions.
Mark Rienzi is a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Liberty, which is among the groups representing these sisters. He puts the case for the injunction this way: “The Obama administration seems to be handing out exemptions to its friends every five minutes,” he says. “It seems only fair that the Little Sisters not be bullied into violating their consciences or paying fines they can’t afford, at least until we have a final ruling on the merits.”
Justice Sotomayor has many options before her. Here’s hoping she comes down on the side of the angels.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Answer: Whatever it takes. Then they can call it ‘legal precedent’ and use it against anyone else that objects.
Best to fight a helpless opponent.
This is article in today’s Wall Street Journal about this:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579298542674477308
>> Obama is a dictator, and I never use that term loosely.
Obama is a wannabe dictator. He’s doing everything in his power to govern by decree but (thank GOD for those reactionary white guys that founded the country!) he doesn’t (yet) have the tools to do so.
On another note entirely: how cool is the name of the group going up against this godless evil tyrant?
PLAINTIFF: “Little Sisters Of The Poor”
RESPONDANT “Evil A**hole Dictator Satan Hussein Obama and his Minions From Hell”
LOL! Who would YOU root for?
Impeachment is the remedy, only who will administer it?
We continue to see the collection of power, the accumulation
of power in one office, it NEVER bodes well, NEVER.
Having corrupted the Courts into inventing a Constitution right to abortion, they are now demanding that those who object pay all the bills. They are doing the same thing with illegal immigration, education, and nanny state government. The Left wants to destroy our culture and society and it doing it with our money.
I hope that all God-fearing Christians are supporting these Roman Catholic nuns.
Thanks for the link!
You’re right - he’s a “wannabe.” And yes, their name is awesome!
U R very welcome.
Messing with the Little Sisters of the Poor has GOT to be the stupidest thing Obama has done yet!
here is the website of the Sisters, it has interesting info on this too...
http://www.littlesistersofthepoor.org/
And then, conviction and incarceration in a jail cell he shares with Satan.
The more news coverage this Supreme Court case receives, the better.
The question is which liberal pundit will be dumb enough to be first to make derogatory comments about the Little Sisters of the Poor and destroy his or her career?
I stand with the Little Sisters of the Poor....
You know how you day dream about winning the lottery
and what you would do with it...
I always picture giving atleast a million to them...
They are wonderful God worshiping woman and if they
need assistance I will be there for them...
Don't bank on it.
I know. I have my charities all lined up if I ever win the big one.
Perhaps Slyfox we will win...and I don’t just mean the Money..
It's no longer hyperbole to call the NYT an evil newspaper.
LIFE IN THE TIME OF HERODES OBAMA’S ABORTOCRACY
For too many more, it may be far too short.
Obama is: an abortion stalwart. And his administration will be: abortocratic.
1/21/2009
By Anne Conlon
At Mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, while listening to readings that celebrate Mary’s great “Yes” to a proposition that would certainly upset life as she knew it, I found myself wondering about the millions of women who, since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, have said “No.”
Maybe one or two (or three or four) were there at Mass with me, meditating on the unexpected angelic encounter that put human history on a course to salvation. Did any of them regret the answer she had given? Or were they, like so many Catholics who voted for Barack Obama, still unmoved by the Church’s teaching—untouched by the news that the fruit of their womb, too, was blessed?
The advent of the Obama administration brings a familiar darkness back to Washington. As it was with Bill Clinton, it seems that abortion will be the only ground over which our new leader will not negotiate. He promised as much at a Planned Parenthood function last year, and there’s no reason not to take him at his word.
Abortion is, in fact, the only issue Obama has a record on. And while the press hasn’t trumpeted it, attention was paid after his careless “above my pay grade” dismissal of Rick Warren’s question about when “a baby gets human rights”—enough so that no responsible voter could claim ignorance of Obama’s history of abortion extremism.
Why is there such need to extinguish all significance from the abortion act? A need so compelling that Obama would acquiesce in outright infanticide rather than support legislation—proposed in 2003 in the Illinois State Senate, of which he was then a member—to protect the lives of babies who survived bungled abortions? Obama, who gathered a winning coalition under the banner of “change we can believe in,” said “No” to this proposition a year after the U.S. Senate unanimously passed virtually identical legislation.
Rescinding the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (along with all other state and federal abortion regulations) is the kind of change Obama believes in.
He signaled as much by naming Ellen Moran, executive director of Emily’s List—a political action committee that raises money only for pro-abortion female candidates—as his communications director. This is more than a sop to women’s organizations whose support Democrats take for granted.
This is a statement about who Obama is: an abortion stalwart. And what his administration will be: abortocratic.
As of this writing, no pro-lifers have been named to his cabinet. (Choosing Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation doesn’t count for much. It’s simply part of Obama’s “I’m going to make you love me” strategy to get even more so-called pro-lifers to vote for him next time around.)
We shouldn’t be surprised. At current rates, one in three American women will have had an abortion by age 45. We can assume that while many may regret the decision—not just among the women themselves, but among fathers, grandparents, and others who were party to it—many more do not.
Eight years of George W. Bush’s unabashed pro-life advocacy—once upon a time, he was even called the nation’s second Catholic president—has been an ordeal for those who believe abortion is a right to be celebrated, not a wrong to be scorned. They expect a massive correction in abortion policy, and rhetoric, now that Democrats are in control.
For all we know, however, Barack Obama’s unabashed pro-abortion advocacy may be motivated by more than political expedience. Perhaps he has been personally touched by the experience. He has, after all, said he wouldn’t want his daughters to be “punished” with an unwanted baby. Is that how he, or his wife, or his best friend, or someone else close to him now or in the past felt about some pregnancy or other—punished? Can abortion really make that feeling go away? Or does it, in the end, exacerbate it?
Some of the most powerful testimony about the personal anguish abortion can cause has come from people who support abortion rights. One especially memorable account appears in the late Magda Denes’s In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death in an Abortion Hospital. Denes, a clinical psychoanalyst (and one of the originators of Gestalt therapy), arranged to spend time observing procedures at the same hospital where she had had an abortion several years before. Her book came out in 1976.
In one chapter, after recording the discomfort she had felt while watching an abortion, Denes describes visiting the room where the remains of aborted fetuses are stored. At first, she recalls the unexpected pleasure of putting on surgical gloves and discovering that her “hands feel completely protected without any noticeable loss of agility.” But pleasure quickly fades as she proceeds to inspect a “garbage-can-filled graveyard,” using forceps to lift dead little human beings out of “paper buckets—the type in which one buys fried chicken from take-out stores.”
Here she is at journey’s end: “Finally, I lift a very large fetus whose *** is such that, rather than its stiff face, I first see its swollen testicles and abnormally large stiff penis. I look at the label. Mother’s name: Catherine Atkins; doctor’s name: Saul Marcus; *** of item: male; time of gestation: twenty-four weeks. I remember Catherine. She is seventeen, a very pretty blond girl.
Not very bright. This is Master Atkins—to be burned tomorrow—who died like a hero to save his mother’s life. Might he have become someday the only one to truly love her? The only one to mourn her death? ‘Nurse, nurse,’ I shout, taking off my fancy gloves. ‘Cover them up.’ ”
Magda Denes had the intellectual decency to call abortion “murder—of a very special and necessary sort.” We don’t hear talk of murder these days; even most pro-lifers eschew that hard word. Now the word “killing” also is being excised from the abortion lexicon, as proponents, including Barack Obama, propagandize the public with arguments that we cannot know for sure when life begins. Covering up the babies isn’t enough.
Language has to be covered up, too. And common sense. But the price of this covering up is delusion. And as we have begun to see, a nation that can delude itself about killing, about murder, can delude itself about anything—the threat of terrorism, the stability of financial markets, the suitability of its new president.
Anne Conlon is managing editor of The Human Life Review.
http://nytimes.com/2014/01/03/opinion/no-burden-on-religion.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.