Previous Next

Finding Home

Currently Being Moderated
13

As an unapologetically, unswervingly pro-life organization, we disagree strongly with the Obama administration that free access to drugs that can cause abortions makes women or society healthier or safer. Obama1.jpg

 

Today’s announcement seems to be an acknowledgement by the White House that it went too far in disregarding the deeply held values, and constitutionally protected conscience rights, of religious organizations and individuals. Still, we are not convinced this tweak to the proposed policy, when analyzed at a level deeper than simple sound bites, truly addresses the religious-liberty concerns that have been raised.

 

There is a limit to what government can compel its citizens to do – and not do – particularly in matters of faith and freedom. It’s in the best interest of all Americans, of every ideological stripe, that it not be crossed.

 

Time will tell if the administration is serious about righting the wrong it had proposed; if it is not, we will be among the first to seek to persuade it to do so. In the meantime, we are mindful that religious liberties are not something any president has the legal authority to recognize or deny; they are granted to all citizens by the Constitution. That’s why we will continue to support efforts under way in Congress to pass legislation that would affirm all Americans’ inalienable rights of conscience protection.

 

Follow me on Twitter @Dalyfocus

Follow me on Facebook

Keep up with Focus on the Family on Facebook

4,188 Views Twitter Facebook Tags: obama


Comments (13)
Add a comment Leave a comment on this blog post.
Feb 10, 2012 5:18 PM Guest J.E.  says:

Today I heard the president refer to "making contraception available to all women" as "preventive medicine." Yes, contraception "prevents" a baby from being born but don't we usually use this phrase in relation to preventing a disease? He also said that non-profit or religious organizations could choose not to offer this as part of their health plan but in that case the insurance company would be "required" to offer it, and at no charge. So who will be paying for this service? We will of course, by our own increased premiums! Our government will be "requiring" actions of us that are against our religious beliefs. Scary stuff!
Feb 10, 2012 6:35 PM Guest Debbi  says:

I don't believe a word of what he "said" today.  He says whatever he wants, but doesn't feel he has to follow through if he does not want to.

 

I want it in writing - as a law.

Feb 10, 2012 6:48 PM Guest Kathleen  says:

Sorry, Jim, but you've failed to provide a reason why you don't think the bill is acceptable.  It provides religious hospitals and universities a special exemption from having to follow the same law that every other employer follows -- how is that not enough?

 

Or do you believe that people who are employed by religious hospitals and universities should get lesser health coverage than everyone else?  If that's the case, you should come out and say so, instead of using vague language that fails to specify exactly what your objection is.

Feb 10, 2012 8:42 PM Guest John A  says:
The use of contraceptives is still a CHOICE.  The Government is not mandating that people use it or not use it!  President Obama is trying to keep the CHOICE up to the individual not up the employer, the Government or the Church.
Feb 10, 2012 11:28 PM Guest Roy  says in response to John A:

Obama just testing the waters (people of faith)  they know the trend of the youth people ,but God is not a trend weather the young believe it or not . Sin is sin sounds tripe but true. ..  And to ask the insurance to pay for it ? We end up paying for it !!!  Everything the goverment does is on the backs of the tax payers.

The bigger or the more the goverment does the more we pay....  might be just a penny but when you add it up we pay for it. Pray for unbelievers eyes to be opened ... You believers you are blessed, thanks to God's Grace
Feb 11, 2012 7:51 AM Guest Travis J.  says in response to John A:

Part of our problem is the sad reality that people choose contraception, sterilization, and it's more obviously evil cousin abortion.  As such, we have compromised ourselves.  Is it any wonder then, that we have national leaders opposed to God and pushing methods, pills, surgery, and murder to eliminate children?  As in the days of old, when the Jewish flock turned their backs on God, He allowed them to be led by tyrants and immoral leaders who brought immense suffering.

 

Are children not a blessing from God?  Did God not intend us to "multiply and fill the earth"?  Is God not the "author of life"?  Did he not create us male and female where the two become "one flesh".  Did God not ordain marital love as a high calling of self giving and sacrifce with abundant blessings (children)?

 

We must be careful and prudent in what "CHOICES" we make.  Often, when we "choose" against Gods blessings of children, we are choosing instead idols (money, career, status, etc).  Very sad, but it is indeed the truth.
Feb 11, 2012 4:20 PM Guest Bob M.  says:
I agree with all of this, but additionally, no thought was ever given to the fact that the Catholic organization owns their OWN insurance companies, so by transfering the responsibility to the insurance companies, the Obama adninistration has dug an even deeper hole as they try to get out of this monstrous one they have managed to dig.  Also, HHS Director Sibelius stated that "I'm sure the insurance companies are magnaminous enough to provide the contraception services free".  Oh, did they even bother to check with any insurance companies?  Not that I'm aware of.
Feb 13, 2012 7:27 AM Guest Jayne  says in response to Kathleen :

No, it is not enough Kathleen, because it is simply adding a layer to the process by "removing" the employer as provider of contraception, sterilzation and abortafacients. Do you really think that the employer's premiums will not be raised to cover the costs that the insurance companies will be "paying"? There is nothing free about prescriptions - the only question is whose pocket does the cost come out of - directly or indirectly. Insurance companies are businesses, not social service agencies.

And the other reason it is not enough is that there is no "right" to services which are not necessary. Does your insurance company pay for a facelift because you don't like your looks? Or for liposuction because you don't want belly fat? Contraception in all its forms is not health coverage, it is an option that people should pay for if they want it - just like they pay for other medically unnecessary costs. And neither I as a participant in a health plan nor an employer should bear the cost. I'm a diabetic, and need medication that is necessary to preserve my life, and I pay a co-payment. Birth control and sterilization are not medically necessary.
Feb 13, 2012 7:23 PM Guest Earl  says:

Back on 16 Mar 1990, the local newspaper, The Edmonton Journal, published an Associated Press article from West Palm Beach Fla. titled "Turtle Egg Poacher fined $108,800.

The article starts off saying; "A turtle's life begins the moment the egg is laid a panel of judges said in agreeing a poacher must shell out $108,800 US under a state law allowing a $100 fine `per unit of marine life'.

The fine was levied against James Bivens,37, of Riviera Beach Fla., who pleaded guilty to taking 1088 turtle eggs from John D. MacArthur State Park on Singer Island."

 

This proves that judges are totally unqualified to make rulings on `when life begins'. If life begins when the turtle egg is laid, then when does life begin for a human? There is a total lack of consistency here. Politicians aren't a heck of a lot smarter. Just some social engineering going on here.
Feb 14, 2012 7:07 PM Guest Dave  says in response to Kathleen :

Kathleen, the exemptions are exemptions in name only, having no substance.  The latest "compromise" merely gives back to all churches the right to decide what constitutes a religious ministry (originally the Obama administration wanted to exempt only specifically worship-oriented services) and supposedly shifts payment of coverage to the insurance companies away from objecting churches or arms of the church.  In fact, when questioned who would be paying the insurance companies for the contraceptive coverage, Obama administration officials were caught in their attempted obfuscation/deception and had to admit that the church would have to pay.  It's a shell game, Kathleen.

 

Those working for principled organizations should not expect their employers to support what they (the latter) truly believe to be morally unacceptable.  You have a choice of whether or not you want for such an employer don't you?  It would be no secret what they stand for; you should be able to determine this in advance with little or no effort, especially if that kind of "health" coverage is so important to you.  People reject employment with certain employers all the time for all kinds of reasons, don't they?  Then again, what's stopping anybody employed by a church or by anybody from spending their own money on contraceptives, including abortifacients? Nothing.  Just don't demand any church to support your habits.

 

Besides, insurance is for covering large, unexpected expenses such as car accidents, a house burning down, etc.  There is a reason why you don't pay your car insurer $200 a year to cover oil changes or your medical/dental insurer a $100 tack-on premium  for toothpaste--these are plannable, foreseeable needs that either you prioritize or you don't.  If you can afford a cell phone, you can afford contraceptives on your own and at, ultimately, at less cost.  Bringing the government into this is ideological warfare, not sound market economics or good healthcare provision.
Feb 15, 2012 2:13 PM Guest Steve  says:

Jim Daly Wrote:

"That’s  why we will continue to support efforts under way in Congress to pass  legislation that would affirm all Americans’ inalienable rights of conscience protection."

 

"it is never proper for government to force the people who elected it to violate their consciences." (follow up e-mail post 2/15/12)

 

What if my concscience says I should be able to own slaves or that black people should ride in the back of the bus? Much precious blood has been spilled over protecting the flawed consciences of sinful humans. Protecting my self-serving conscience is not an unalienable right. I have no rights...I was bought with a price...by the one who gave up all his rights.

 

We must be very careful in framing our responses to any issue of the day. The real issue is submitting our imperfect consciences to the will and authority of the creator of the universe.

 

" The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron." (1 Tim 4:1-2)
Feb 23, 2012 12:24 AM Guest Kevin  says in response to Steve:

Great observation, Steve.

 

We must never forget that with rights come responsibilities.  Unfortunately, we live in a day and age when the rights of the individuals are discussed much more often than the responsibilities each of us have as American citizens, let alone the additional responsibilities believers have as we model God's teachings and expectations before God and our fellow men.  Christian responsibility is best demonstrated by those who deny themselves daily, take up their cross, and follow Christ.  I don't ask "What would Jesus do?", but rather, "What would Jesus have me do?"  As we seek God's guidance and wisdom, He will give us what we need, when we need it, and for His honor and glory.
Feb 24, 2012 6:31 PM Guest Elaine  says:
I keep reading and hearing about "free" contraception.  How is the contraception "free?"  Last time I checked, I paid for my health care, whether I used all aspects of it or not.  

Actions

Popular Blog Posts