LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Barbara Boxer: Right to Insurance Trumps Religious Freedom
Source:
LN.com
URL Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/15/ ... ance-trumps-religious-freedom/
Published: Feb 19, 2012
Author: Steven Ertelt
Post Date: 2012-02-19 08:56:22 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 92122
Comments: 155
Barbara Boxer: Right to Insurance Trumps Religious Freedom by Steven Ertelt Barbara Boxer, the leading pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate, made some comments in a recent MSNBC interview that are sparking outrage across the Internet today. Boxer essentially says the right to insurance trumps religious rights and freedoms. The comments came during an interview concerning the controversial mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place recently requiring religious groups to pay for insurance coverage for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions. As the Washington Examiner reports: Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured. On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced by the government to pay for medical practices against his religion. “I mean, are they serious? Sharpton exclaimed, “How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?” “Oh Absolutely,” Boxer said, “Let’s use an example, let’s say somebody believes that medicine doesn’t cure anybody of a disease but prayer does and then they decide no medicine. “No medicine!” she exclaimed, “Under the Blunt amendment, they could do just that.” The new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs is so offensive more than 50 members of Congress will speak out against it today. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry will hold a press conference today with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Related Links Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate. This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage. The press conference comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to vote soon, possibly as early as today, on an amendment that would stop the mandate President Barack Obama put in place to force religious groups to pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control and abortion-causing drugs. Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs. Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees. Congress will do what it can to fight back, starting this week, as pro-life Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, puts together a hearing on conscience rights. “If this is what the President is willing to do in a tough election year, imagine what he will do in implementing the rest of his health care law after the election,” Issa said. Rep. Dan Lipinski, a pro-life Illinois Democrat, and a host of Republicans from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), will hold a hearing entitled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” on Thursday, February 16th at 9:30AM in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building. On Thursday, Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and others offered Amendment #1520 to ensure Obamacare cannot be used to force health plan issuers or healthcare providers to furnish insurance coverage for drugs, devices, and services contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, blocked the amendment. Leading pro-life groups, including Americans United for Life, are urging support for the Amendment, which could be added to another piece of legislation. “The Obama Administration continued its unprecedented attack on Americans’ freedom of conscience by refusing to reverse its mandate that nearly all insurance plans must provide full coverage of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved “contraception,” including the abortion-inducing drug ella,” the organization said in an action alert to its members. “We must urge the Senate to protect Americans’ freedom of conscience by supporting Amendment #1520, which would protect the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage that is consistent with one’s religious beliefs and moral convictions.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit. Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose. Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees. Bishops across the country have spoken out against the original mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit. “We cannot — we will not comply with this unjust law,” said the letter from Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. “People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.” The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.” The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program. The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days. The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
Poster Comment: Now we know where a few people on here get their justification for implementing ObozoCare!!!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-95) not displayed.
.
.
.
#96. To: freedomsnotfree (#86)
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people. If you don't like it you can move to Somalia. I don't think they have any government sponsored welfare programs there at all. If I am wrong and they do, i guess you are probably out of luck.
I should have qualified my statement by saying that as long the SP doesn't strike it down.
actually...I'd say NJ is right. They take your tax dollars and use it however they see fit...even illegal wars. I grew up in an era when we were told "nobody owes you anything"...what a different mindset we have today.
And there it is! The constitution be damned, you want the government to do what makes you feel good, regardless of whether or not government has that legal authority, because the modern civilized world has collectively decided. You should love both Bush and Obama then. Bush lobbied for and signed into law the single largest entitlement program this country had ever seen, until Obamacare of course. Are you a fan of both Bush and Obama?
the "modern civilized world" is not, and never have been free. based on your judgement the government should come in and take EVERYTHING you own and give it to the less "fortunate". Stealing someone's hard earned money is ANYTHING but "civilized"... I was in Russia before the wall came down...they would laugh at your ignorant nativity. no one is "EQUAL" until everyone is equally poor...except the very, very few in Government positions deciding what's "BEST" for the people. How old are you? The fact you think you are "owed" anything is absurd. You're a victim...with a victims mindset.
The supreme court does not have the authority to make law or amend the constitution, but that doesn't stop them from trying. Congress is too corrupt to remove them when they violate their "term of good behavior". Most of them don't even know what good behavior is.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
LOL! And...when was that meeting held? Was a vote taken? Was the constitution amended and I'm not aware of it?
You mean..as long as it's authorized by the US Constitution. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes for the specific, enumerated activities listed in Article 1, Section 8; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
And...when was that meeting held? Was a vote taken? We the people (ha ha) did it through our government. We decided along with all of the other modern societies to provide help for the poor. Was the constitution amended and I'm not aware of it? The Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional. Not you or me..
Take it up with the Supreme Court. I am not a constitutional scholar..
Who said anything about equality? That's not realistic and not what I am talking about.
Well, maybe if you became a bit more informed, perhaps you could form your own opinion, and not just follow orders and others like a bleating sheep, and tell others, on a political discussion forum, that their opinion is irrelevant on a subject that you yourself are ignorant of. From the conception of the SCOTUS, and up until 1937, the SCOTUS agreed exactly with what I'm telling you. Then something changed and suddenly, the SCOTUS conferred upon Congress a plenary power, and they could now decide at their will and discretion. So the SCOTUS has ruled BOTH ways, the latter now for all of 75 years. Now you tell me, which do you think is correct or which do you agree with... that Congress' power is limited, as the Constitution and the Federalist Papers dictate, or that the power of Congress is unlimited and subject to their whim, and that they can do whatever they like? Do you live in a Constitutional Republic or a monarchy? And why the sudden change of philosophy in 1937 in Helvering v. Davis? Start your discovery of knowledge here; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause then form an opinion and come back and discuss it here, on a political discussion forum.
No. What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives Corporations the right to exist. If you're bringing the Constitution into this debate, The First is Who Authorized Corporations. I'll live free and die (per Health Care) but there can't be a Corporation on my neck....;}
I bothered to respond. Saying you're comparing oranges and apples.
I don't even have any apples or oranges. I have chips and cheese though!
If you're talking about corporate personhood, then we agree. Corporations are not people.
Since more and more countries are starting to travel down the path of more freedoms and less taxes it won't take long before quite a few Americans figure this out and move to those countries..... taking all of their money and assets with them leaving nothing for the Leftard leeches of this country.....
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
we are headed for so very interesting times...and the "you owe me" crowd is going to be in for a rude wake-up call.
Especially after the handouts stop and they decide to come to my house to "TRY" to liberate some of my personal possessions!!!
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
...believe it...I moved out of a major city years ago...I'm on 9 acres in the country, in a "town" of 4,500 folks...his kind won't be very welcome around here.
They're already not welcome around here, the city council have decided they will not allow the RTA to have bus stops anywhere around any of the local business establishments... I.E. "You ruined your side of town so we aren't going to allow you to ruin our side of town"
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
no bus stops here...or close to here. We can count the stop lights on both hands, easily. Most folks have been here for generations...so the interloper will be easily identified. The "you owe me" folks in the city won't last long...they're not many of those types in the country...not easy enough for them.
That is long time for ruling to stay in effect. Sounds like settled law. I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't have opinions on such complex areas of law. I do have faith in the people in most instances to make the right decisions regarding the law. And trust that court will make the right decision when it comes to the constitutionality of any law. And you find very broad support for Social Security, Medicare, and other social welfare programs. You should change your name from WTP to my view of the constitution and screw what the people want.
LMAO!!! OK, I'll take that into consideration. See, this is what is frustrating about idiots like you. For whatever reason, you think other peoples opinions on constitutional issues don't matter, on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue. You'd rather play your childish and ignorant oneupmanship game, and you're not even good at that! What is ya boy, stupid? You admit you don't know anything about the subject, but you have the gall to pretend to tell someone else who reads everything he can find on constitutional issues that his opinion doesn't matter? LOL! In a place DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE TO POST THEIR OPINIONS AND DISCUSS THEM! And all because my opinion hurts your delicate little sensibilities? I know, let's talk about something that won't make you cry and that you do know about. Say... Oh, I don't know, maybe American Idol? Will that stop your vagina from bleeding?
LOL! You're admitting that you also don't know anything about history.
The Constitution was written so the people could read it and understand it...the fact you can't, or want it to read differently than it was written, is telling. And as far as what people want...I could care less, it seems to me at one time the people of Germany wanted to exterminate a lot of Jews...does that make it right. You never answered the mans questions....is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power...oh, that's right...you don't "have" opinions...as long as you can benefit from the hard work of others. You really are a "special" kind of stupid aren't you.
Rules for Leftards #45). Why are you taking it personally that I make my entire living off of people like you that actually do something useful???
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
That is long time for ruling to stay in effect. Sounds like settled law. There is no such thing as 'settled law'. The general welfare clause was interpreted as it was written in the Constitution and explained in the federalist papers, for 150 years prior to 1937. Sound like 'settled law'?
HOW DARE you want to keep what you earn!!! It's MINE, MINE all MINE!! lol
Rules for Leftards #25). Why are you mad that I can afford to go on a vacation with “your” tax money and you can’t!!!
There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats!!!
A constitutional issue is not a political issue. It is one that the courts deal with. And it is very complex legal issue which requires one to have a in depth understanding of the case law and precedents. I don't have that kind of understanding. What are your qualifications? How valuable or definitive should I consider your opinions on the matter
I think I did answer it. I said when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President. So yes the government does not have unlimited power.
So what happens when the appointees are communist/globalist minded judges that think the Constitution is an outdated document and we should move toward international law... are "we the people" supposed to ignore the Constitution just because 9 people in black robes say we should.
Sound like 'settled law'? Considering the number of laws passed since that time dealing with the issue and consequently the opportunities to overturn the ruling, I would call it "settled law." But I realize how happy you would be to return us to the the 19th century in terms of our welfare state. What a glorious time for the poor and elderly that was.
Well if enough people agree with you, you can change the constitution any way you want. You can also tell the Congress to end welfare programs. That would be your best bet.
POOR!!! You do realize this welfare/warfare state has put us 15 TRILLION dollars in debt...RIGHT!!! you REALIZE THIS RIGHT!!! You realize the middle class is being completely wiped out before our eyes and that we've gone from the wealthiest nation on the planet to the largest debtor nation in history of the world...there are MORE poor people, not less, since "redistribution" was considered "civilized". Oh, and in case we're wondering where all the confiscated money went...look at the growth of the government...it was NEVER intended to help the people...it was their so they're could take the lions share of what they fleeced for the people....and create a dependent society. I hope you're ready for the collapse...it's coming...THEN how will the poor and elderly make it. Take a GOOD look at Greece...
I won't have to tell Congress anything...the shows over and we're broke...the gravy train is going to crash to a halt...it's inevitable and unavoidable...thank goodness, it's way past time.
Fiction, no basis in fact. The supreme court ruled that Sam had to buy a license to live on Indian land. Andy Jackson said NO. Congress said NO. The voters said NO, and elected Jackson to a second term. Everyone flipped off the supreme court, and lived happily ever after. End of story.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Why Greece? Why not Iceland
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
we can prey we throw off the shackles of the Federal reserve and the international bankers, but Iceland is a very close nit community and the "you owe me" mentality is not there. Wait till the welfare, WIC, rent subsidies, and all the government checks come to a halt...think Katrina...only nationwide.
Comments (136 - 155) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestwhy should the family making 300k, 400k or 75k be responsible for the needs, wants or desires of anybody
#97. To: We The People (#95)
No, YOU DID when you said, "The government has the "right" to tax you for "whatever" the government through its elected leaders decided to enact into law".
#98. To: We The People, newsjunky (#95)
No, YOU DID when you said, "The government has the "right" to tax you for "whatever" the government through its elected leaders decided to enact into law".
#99. To: NewsJunky (#96)
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people.
#100. To: NewsJunky (#96)
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people. If you don't like it you can move to Somalia. I don't think they have any government sponsored welfare programs there at all. If I am wrong and they do, i guess you are probably out of luck.
#101. To: NewsJunky, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#97)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#102. To: NewsJunky (#96)
Because the modern civilized world has collectively decided to that government should play a role in helping poor people.
#103. To: NewsJunky (#97)
I should have qualified my statement by saying that as long the SP doesn't strike it down.
#104. To: We The People (#102)
LOL!
#105. To: We The People (#103)
#106. To: freedomsnotfree (#100)
no one is "EQUAL" until everyone is equally poor...
#107. To: NewsJunky (#105)
(Edited)
Take it up with the Supreme Court. I am not a constitutional scholar..
#108. To: We The People (#6)
What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives the federal government authority to involve itself in the health care of it's citizens in the first place?
#109. To: We The People, mininggold, All (#5)
(Edited)
If you can't or wont address what I ACTUALLY said, why bother to respond?
#110. To: mcgowanjm (#109)
#111. To: mcgowanjm (#108)
#112. To: freedomsnotfree, NewsJunky (#93)
the gravy train is about to end for you and your fellow, "you owe me" thinkers. The coming collapse will put an end to ALL entitlement programs...deal with it.
#113. To: CZ82 (#112)
(Edited)
#114. To: freedomsnotfree (#113)
we are headed for so very interesting times...and the "you owe me" crowd is going to be in for a rude wake-up call.
#115. To: CZ82 (#114)
#116. To: freedomsnotfree (#115)
...believe it...I moved out of a major city years ago...I'm on 9 acres in the country, in a "town" of 4,500 folks...his kind won't be very welcome around here.
#117. To: CZ82 (#116)
#118. To: We The People (#107)
the latter now for all of 75 years.
#119. To: NewsJunky (#118)
(Edited)
You should change your name from WTP to my view of the constitution and screw what the people want.
#120. To: NewsJunky (#118)
I do have faith in the people in most instances to make the right decisions regarding the law. And trust that court will make the right decision when it comes to the constitutionality of any law.
#121. To: NewsJunky (#118)
I am not a constitutional scholar so I don't have opinions on such complex areas of law.
#122. To: freedomsnotfree, AKA Stone (#121)
oh, that's right...you don't "have" opinions...as long as you can benefit from the hard work of others. You really are a "special" kind of stupid aren't you.
#123. To: NewsJunky (#118)
the latter now for all of 75 years.
#124. To: CZ82 (#122)
#125. To: freedomsnotfree, AKA Stone (#124)
HOW DARE you want to keep what you earn!!! It's MINE, MINE all MINE!! lol
#126. To: We The People (#119)
For whatever reason, you think other peoples opinions on constitutional issues don't matter, on a political discussion forum, on a thread dealing with a constitutional issue.
#127. To: freedomsnotfree (#121)
is government limited in its power by the Constitution or does it have unlimited power.
#128. To: NewsJunky (#127)
#129. To: We The People (#123)
The general welfare clause was interpreted as it was written in the Constitution and explained in the federalist papers, for 150 years prior to 1937.
#130. To: freedomsnotfree (#128)
So what happens when the appointees are communist/globalist minded judges that think the Constitution is an outdated document and we should move toward international law... are "we the people" supposed to ignore the Constitution just because 9 people in black robes say we should.
#131. To: NewsJunky (#129)
What a glorious time for the poor and elderly that was.
#132. To: NewsJunky (#130)
You can also tell the Congress to end welfare programs
#133. To: NewsJunky, freedomsnotfree, We The People, CZ82, *Liberal Rehab Staff* (#127)
when the Supreme Court strikes down a law then the court limits the power of Congress or President
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" -President Andrew Jackson 
Samuel Worcester
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#134. To: freedomsnotfree (#131)
Take a GOOD look at Greece...
#135. To: lucysmom (#134)
Why Greece? Why not Iceland
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]