However, they themselves and their foot soldiers have a lot to answer for in the area of morals within their own house, and have no business trying to dictate or influence public policy as it relates to morality... at least until they can prove they are willing and able to clean their own houses.

Their followers are not obligated in any way to take advantage of any of the services offered through such health care legislation... and are free to stick with their own beliefs, such as abstinence, the rhythm method, or be fruitful and multiply - never mind the cost of such actions.

They are not free to dictate to those who do not believe, or who believe otherwise, however. There is nothing unjust going on here... except maybe the Vatican trying to overstep its bounds. The state and church are not to be intertwined.

Declaration of Utrecht (Old Catholic Church)
1. We adhere faithfully to the Rule of Faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins in these terms: "Id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum." For this reason we preserve in professing the faith of the primitive Church, as formulated in the oecumenical symbols and specified precisely by the unanimously accepted decisions of the Oecumenical Councils held in the undivided Church of the first thousand years.

2. We therefore reject the decrees of the so-called Council of the Vatican, which were promulgated July 18th, 1870, concerning the infallibility and the universal Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome, decrees which are in contradiction with the faith of the ancient Church, and which destroy its ancient canonical constitution by attributing to the Pope the plentitude of ecclesiastical powers over all Dioceses and over all the faithful. By denial of this primatial jurisdiction we do not wish to deny the historical primacy which several Oecumenical Councils and Fathers of the ancient Church have attributed to the Bishop of Rome by recognizing him as the Primus inter pares.

3. We also reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception promulgated by Pius IX in 1854 in defiance of the Holy Scriptures and in contradiction to the tradition of the centuries.

4. As for other Encyclicals published by the Bishops of Rome in recent times for example, the Bulls Unigenitus and Auctorem fidei , and the Syllabus of 1864, we reject them on all such points as are in contradiction with the doctrine of the primitive Church, and we do not recognize them as binding on the consciences of the faithful. We also renew the ancient protests of the Catholic Church of Holland against the errors of the Roman Curia, and against its attacks upon the rights of national Churches.

5. We refuse to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent in matters of discipline, and as for the dogmatic decisions of that Council we accept them only so far as they are in harmony with the teaching of the primitive Church.

6. Considering that the Holy Eucharist has always been the true central point of Catholic worship, we consider it our right to declare that we maintain with perfect fidelity the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, by believing that we receive the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine. The Eucharistic celebration in the Church is neither a continual repetition nor a renewal of the expiatory sacrifice which Jesus offered once for all upon the Cross: but it is a sacrifice because it is the perpetual commemoration of the sacrifice offered upon the Cross, and it is the act by which we represent upon earth and appropriate to ourselves the one offering which Jesus Christ makes in Heaven, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:11-12, for the salvation of redeemed humanity, by appearing for us in the presence of God (Heb. 9:24). The character of the Holy Eucharist being thus understood, it is, at the same time, a sacrificial feast, by means of which the faithful in receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour, enter into communion with one another (I Cor. 10:17).

7. We hope that Catholic theologians, in maintaining the faith of the undivided Church, will succeed in establishing an agreement upon questions which have been controverted ever since the divisions which arose between the Churches. We exhort the priests under our jurisdiction to teach, both by preaching and by the instruction of the young, especially the essential Christian truths professed by all the Christian confessions, to avoid, in discussing controverted doctrines, any violation of truth or charity, and in word and deed to set an example to the members.

8. By maintaining and professing faithfully the doctrine of Jesus Christ, by refusing to admit those errors which by the fault of men have crept into the Catholic Church, by laying aside the abuses in ecclesiastical matters, together with the worldly tendencies of the hierarchy, we believe that we shall be able to combat efficaciously the great evils of our day, which are unbelief and indifference in matters of religion.

Again the same old misnomer, the same old GOP talking points, the same old rhetoric to "rile up the troops", get those right wing religious ones spouting again with anti-Obama, anti democrat stuff.

So again the facts are pretty simple, that is if one decides to tell the truth on the subject.

The state is not dictating to the church, the state is not forcing anything or anyone to go against the "tenets of the church" or an other such nonsense.

The state is simply requiring an employer to follow the laws and if the employer refuses to do so, then the employer will suffer the legal consequences of not following the law.

In this case, it is the church, specifically the Roman Catholic Church that is crying "foul" on this.

It is the Roman Catholic Church that is crying out about separation of church and state and it's doing so because this is an election year and they think they can have more control over the election, more control over who will and will not be elected by a "playing this game of politics" and think they can get away with it.

The conservative GOP candidates have jumped on the latest religious bandwagon created by the Roman Catholic Church, in hopes of gaining support for their primary run from the people.

This has nothing what so ever to do with separation of church and state and everything to do with the right wing religious right, now joined by the Roman Catholic Church who started this latest bruha, to control politics, get involved directly with politics, get their religious beliefs to become part of the laws in this country, get their religious beliefs to become part of the interpretation of the laws in this country.

This is politics playing out and being that it is politics, those that claim the religious exemptions in their taxes, well the IRS needs to become directly involved now.

Play around with politics like this and that's lobbying for your political belief, it is not religion and that tax exempt bit needs to be taken away.

Can't have it both ways, either it's religion and tax exempt or it's politics and lobbying and that is not religion, say good bay to the non profit status, the tax exempt.

It's time the GOP admits to the truth, but certainly not going to be likely, that this is all about controlling politics and the laws and nothing to do with religion.

Mrskjun et al, you can keep crying about the state stuff with this all you want, it just shows how little you really do understand about the separation of church and state.

Hospitals, colleges, they are not churches, they are not houses of worship, they are, plain and simple, a business and as such, fall under the laws of business, not anything else no matter how hard you try to make it out to be.

Religion is on one side, politics and laws is on the other side.

Now if politics and law where intruding into the outright practice of someone's personal religious beliefs, that then is what is mixing up the separation of church and state.
But this is not the case in this law.

The Catholic Church knows this, the GOP knows this, the candidates know this. But it sure does make for some good fodder for the right wing religious right to pander about and mess with the heads of the religious right and those GOP supporters and the Tea Party crew.

Just listen to them and all the rhetoric that they spew out about a non issue, the lies that keep coming out and the "believers" just fall in line, lock, stock and barrel and start spewing out those GOP talking points.

You can see it right here on hot topics.

I suggest that those of you that are spewing out the GOP talking points take some time, some real time to investigate what these absurd claims are that the GOP is making, the Catholic Church is making instead of spewing out those talking points.

If you actually bothered to do that and if you are capable of comprehending the facts, that would end your spewing out those GOP talking points because they are nothing more than fabrication, lies, distorted truths.

I would hope you would do the same. The Catholic church is attempting to impose it's will upon American women.

If they don't want to use birth control, they can choose not to use that portion of their health care coverage. Easy Peasy.

Again for the second time, I ask Mrskj and Demi if she is reading..... Why do you think is the specific reasons the conservative reps have chosen this particular topic over which to express public vocal outrage?

With all the various topics of concern for the nation at their disposal, why did they choose this particular one with which to go very public?

"So much for the GOP/Teaparty claims on how liberal Obama is/was. He was and is and always will be a centrist.

I also would be furious as well. So much for not having a spine, unable to stand up and not be afraid to do what is 100% correct, vs cave into the right wing religious zealots that bully the opposition into caving in to their demands.

I'll also say that the accusations of "no compromise" rhetoric that is always coming out of the mouths of the right, the claims that Obama will not compromise is a lot of crap.

To bad that a spine surgeon couldn't repair the President's spine, but as my own spine surgeon has said "it's not possible because he doesn't have a spine any more to repair, it crumbled into dust a few years ago."

Sure goes to show that one doesn't argue with bullies, nor their minions.

It is not his job to interfere where the legalities of other sovereign nations do not force his followers to do anything they do not wish to do... as these legalities clearly do not.

Aside from that fact, hospitals and educational facilities are not places of worship by definition... they are not churches. That is a factual distinction. They employ persons of all faiths, races, etc... in order to meet the needs of such facilities. They minister medically to the sick, and educate persons... of all faiths, races, etc...

This is nothing more than the the cry and hue of the right... the latest outrage du jour... rhetorical distraction, repeated as presented by followed media.

Give up that pretense allowing tax exempt status, and there won't be an issue.

A lot of things are legal... has anyone been forced into doing them should their belief state otherwise? Alcohol is legal... has any one of you been forced into drinking? Abortions are legal... has any one of you been forced to obtain one?

Mark up another move against women and mark up another woman who supported it along with others in this forum.

Congratulations. Can you just feel your victory flowing through your female veins?

-Ron-

"mark up one for the constitution"?

How many times must you be told that there is nothing in the constitution that pertains to what you and your fellow supporters of the GOP claim it to be.

There was absolutely nothing in this law that pertains to any interference in one's ability to practice or not practice their religious beliefs.

It is the Catholic Church and it's supporters that are in violation of the constitution and forcing their religious beliefs on those that don't believe in their religion or their interpretation of the Bible and religious belief.

Oh, yeah, haven't heard you say anything about the compromise though? Will the Church support it, go along with it, or will it still not be enough to satisfy their political and religious claims?

Will the Church continue it's rant and raving until it gets what it wants in full?

Will it continue with it's interference in the laws of this country and continue to play both sides of the coin to control the laws and yet play the religious trump card whenever it wants to?

HMM awfully silent on reality, aren't you MrsK?

kind of sounds like it is a word game being played. Unless I didn't understand something about this compromise.

The Church provides insurance coverage from an insurance company and pays a portion of it and the employee, I assume, pays a portion of it.

Yet the same insurance company that is contracted to provide the insurance to the employee will be required to seek out all female employees and, again I assume dependent females under the insurance coverage, and offer them free contraceptives I.E. Birth control pills.

Hmm. kind of sounds like the Church is paying for the coverage even though it doesn't outright say that it is and the coverage is still required by law to be provided free to the employees, the same employees that the church didn't want to provide the coverage for.

Did I miss something here or is this just some stupid word games that are being played here and the required coverage is still there and free as well?

Will the Church accepts this offer MrsK?

"By NBC News, msnbc.com staff and wire reports
Updated at 12:53 p.m. ET- President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees.
Capping weeks of growing controversy, Obama said he was backing off a newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter totheir religious beliefs.
Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies.
"Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work. That core principle remains," he said from the White House briefing room.
"Religious liberty will be protected and a law that requires free preventative care will not discriminate against women," Obama added."

But of course.

They fall for it everytime! Hilarious.

LOL!

He neutered them. Gotta love it.

Would really be a pathetically sad and sick attitude if The Church is fine with "the little blue pill" I.E. the pill to have a good time with but, at the same time, force the woman to risk suffering the consequences of agreeing to have a good time with a man using "the little blue pill".

Ah, but it is that male thing, control and manipulate the woman and let the man have all the control that is at the real heart of this problem.

Men at the top of the hierarchy running the show, making all the decisions, women at the very bottom, being stepped on, ordered around and suffering the consequences of any and all decisions made by the "hierarchy" the men.

They are businesses, not churches. I know, I get my health care from Georgetown University Hospital. Also, most have been providing such coverage for years. It is not a constitutional issue, but then, when was the last time you read it for yourself?

Responses from FIPL [Faith in Public Life], CHA [Catholic Health Association] and other Catholic organizations underscore a reality about Catholic voters that has become crystal clear in the past week. Put plainly, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has bitterly opposed the contraception coverage mandate, does not speak for all Catholics -- and it does not even speak for all organized Catholics. A widely reported poll from Public Policy Polling found that a majority of Catholics, 53 percent, supported the birth control requirement even before the compromise. For 46 percent of Catholic voters, Mitt Romney's position on the issue -- opposing it and calling the coverage requirement an "attack on religious liberty" -- makes them less likely to vote for him in November. Yet another poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, found that 58 percent of Catholics believe that their own employer should be required to cover no-cost birth control. (And don't forget that the backdrop for all of this is that 99 percent of sexuality active women use birth control, and 98 percent of Catholic women.)

In a Feb. 11, 2011, hearing for the debtors to gain insight on the assets, Anderson questioned the archdiocesan chief financial officer, John Marek.
"After the Wisconsin Supreme Court came down with a decision [favorable to victim-plaintiffs] on July 11 of 07," Anderson stated, "there appears to be over $55 million transferred to the fund in 08. Are you aware of that?"
Marek called it "a unique, distinct fund that has always been held separately, held in trust. Those monies were moved into the Perpetual Care Trust that had been formed."
Q: And what accounts were the funds held in before creation of the trust?
A: In the income care fund.
Q: Under the control of the archbishop?
A: Well, ultimately, yeah, I guess.
Q: Why isn't it listed on these [archdiocesan financial statement] schedules?
A: Because we don't own the trust.
Marek was referring to the Beneficial Interest in Cemetery Perpetual Care Trust, a pivotal issue in the proceedings.
NCR provided a copy of the hearing transcript to Jack Ruhl, a professor of accountancy at Western Michigan University who has done extensive research on diocesan financial statements. Ruhl is also a 1978 graduate of Worsham College of Mortuary Science in Wheeling, Ill., and was a licensed funeral director in Michigan for several years before earning his doctorate in accountancy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Referring to the transcript, Ruhl told NCR: "When Marek says, We don't own the trust, I would ask: Then why does the trust appear as an asset on the archdiocesan balance sheet? The definition of an asset is something that provides future economic benefit. When the archdiocese classified the [cemetery] trust account on their balance sheet as an asset, they acknowledged that the trust provides future benefit. The things we laypeople call assets our homes, cars, investment funds means that we own them, and to say otherwise in this case is misleading."
On the 2007 archdiocesan balance sheet, Ruhl explained, the asset account with the largest balance, at $59.9 million, has a specific title: "Assets designated for future care of cemeteries and mausoleums, primarily cash and investments."
In contrast, the 2007 balance sheet shows an asset account called "Beneficial Interest in Cemetery Perpetual Care Trust" with a zero balance.
"In other words, they zeroed out one account and transferred most of the funds to a new account," Ruhl explained. "From an accounting standpoint, all Dolan did was rename the assets. It was a shell game."
Isely's odyssey
Bankruptcy is the latest turn in the odyssey of Peter Isely, 51, a Wisconsin native son with a master of divinity degree from Harvard University. As Midwest director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Isely has relentlessly challenged three successive archbishops Rembert Weakland, Dolan and now Listecki to identify clergy predators and do right by the victims. For years, however, the Pritzloff decision foreclosed any chance at civil redress for the dozens of victims Isely got to know after going public with his own story (see sidebar).
Isely is not a plaintiff; he draws a salary of less than $50,000 from SNAP. But with the bankruptcy under way, at whatever level the settlements finally pay, the moral agenda Isely has pushed on the church has, in a very real sense, prevailed.

Business Business Business big business shot to pieces byt being above the law for so long.

It's not absolutely UNIVERSAL as Catholic Hospitals (some in Barcelona) carry out abortions to save the lives of mothers. WHHHHAAAAAT! That's a no no in the Universal Roman Church