And speaking of “freedom of conscience”

Posted by: Phineas on August 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm

**Posted by Phineas

ObamaCare’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandates took effect today:

As of July 31, 2012 a business owner who objects to abortion had the freedom of conscience to make sure that her company’s insurance policies did not pay to facilitate the practice. But as of today, August 1, she no longer has that freedom. The ObamaCare contraceptive and abortifacient mandates take effect today, hailed by the Obama regime as a great and wonderful thing.

According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “President Obama is moving our country forward by giving women control over their health care. This law puts women and their doctors, not insurance companies or the government, in charge of health care decisions.”

What about pro-life women? Do they not exist?

Not in the eyes of Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, or the Left, they don’t.

Be sure to read the rest.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 Responses to “And speaking of “freedom of conscience””

Comments

  1. Just to provide a little perspective, consider this: The Catholic Church is under attack. Which church is next?

  2. Phineas says:

    The Catholic Church is under attack.

    Orthodox bishops have also denounced* the HHS mandate, and they rarely pronounce on politics. I don’t think the administration realized just how broad opposition to this would be.

    *(Haven’t checked on major Protestant groups, yet.)

  3. Carlos says:

    The answer, Drew, is any Christian church that adheres to the basic tenets of Christianity as expressed in the New Testament.

    You know, things like responsibility for one’s self, honoring Jesus and following Him and His stated requirements with joy (loving others as oneself, tithing, aiding the poor, worshipping together, calling out blasphemers, etc., etc.) while at the same time loving the sinner and hating the sin (obviously a foreign concept, unintelligible, to liberals).

    ‘Course, Duh-1 is real careful ’bout such things (at least before this election) because he knows we are quite a voting block, and if there’s one thing he knows for sure he can’t destroy our country if he isn’t in power.

  4. Zachriel says:

    And if the employer doesn’t believe in medical science, or has a religious belief in the superiority of white people, or taxation impinges on their conscience …

  5. Carlos says:

    “And if the employer doesn’t believe in medical science, or has a religious belief in the superiority of white people Arabs, or taxation impinges on their conscience …”

    Then that person is free to move to where those particular beliefs are held, Zachriel. Like Tehran, or Cairo, or maybe even San Fran Nan’s district…

    No matter how much you hate Christians and Christianity, your arguments are always soooo hollow as to be echos of each previous comment of yours.

  6. Ditto me, Carlos. Notice how Zachriel used just one sentence to include flat earth sentiment, the race card, and “fair share” socialist dogma in the best tradition of the Occupy half-wits and their commiecrat ilk.

  7. Great White Rat says:

    Oh, it’s typical of Zach. He won’t debate any points. He simply repeats his dogma over and over again. His mind is closed tight. Combine that implacable ignorance with invincible arrogance, and you’ve got the kind of closed-minded (in this case anti-Christian) bigot that is your average leftist.

    It’s interesting that he’d bring science into this, since the left’s cherry-picked ignorance on science is so blatant.

    For example, science is crystal clear about the benefits associated with nuclear power, and a disinterested, scientific mind weighs the costs against these benefits. The Left’s opposition to nuclear power in all its forms is theological, not scientific.

    Medical science has provided us the ability to see life in utero in amazing detail. The abortion lobby on the Left is reflexive in its desire to deny the obvious and to keep the women in their clinics ignorant of the facts.

    Science is even clear about the obvious differences between the sexes. Genetically they derive from an entire chromosome and not just a handful of genes. Think that scientific fact will stop the Left from demanding that men and women ought to act identically — or from drawing specious comparisons between anti-miscegination laws and the traditional definition of marriage? No way.

    Add to that the ‘science’ of economics. Do we really need to go into the Left’s willful ignorance of sound economic principles and their blind faith in central planners as they attempt to bring about their redistributionist utopia?

    Bottom line is this: liberalism as we know it today is not derived from science, or from thinking of any kind. It’s an emotional outburst, Drew is exactly right. It is typified by the incoherent disease-ridden OWS rape camps from last year and encapsulated beautifully by Obama saying openly that he didn’t care if hiking the capital gains tax meant less government revenue, less investment, and fewer jobs, because he was more concerned about ‘fairness’.

  8. Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: And if the employer doesn’t believe in medical science, or has a religious belief in the superiority of white people, or taxation impinges on their conscience.

    Carlos: Then that person is free to move to where those particular beliefs are held,

    Drew the Infidel: Notice how Zachriel used just one sentence to include flat earth sentiment,

    Great White Rat: He won’t debate any points.

    Ironically, not one of you bothered to debate the point. Someone can have a religious objection to war, for instance, but they can still be compelled to pay the tax.

  9. Great White Rat says:

    What point? You didn’t make any points in the first place, merely did your usual act of flinging poo and dreaming up hypothetical demons to support your hate.

    And also completely ignored my points about science, thereby proving my point that you run from debate and only regurgitate your leftist pabulum of the day.

    No need to respond….I’m not going to waste any more bandwidth on you.

  10. @Zachriel – I would be delighted to engage you in a battle of wits if I thought you were half-armed.

  11. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: What point?

    It wasn’t that hard to understand.

    Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or, if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?