The American Spectator

Floyd Looney| 2.14.12 @ 9:12AM

Since I am not a Catholic, I guess I'm fine.

Oh wait, the mandate applies to all of us?

I certainly when the people on "our side" acted like we were in this together! Trying to make this about one denomination needlessly divides our united front.

teflon93| 2.14.12 @ 9:13AM

These articles are Exhibits A and B as to why I've long considered Murdock to be the best contemporary conservative pundit.

Quin| 2.14.12 @ 11:00AM

No offense to any other pundit, but as Deroy's friend for 29 1/2 years (since our second day at college), I agree!

Bob Miller| 2.14.12 @ 10:12AM

If one grab for dictatorial power doesn't work, Obama triesto sneal in another. Obama has no right to order religious organizations to violate their principles OR to order companies such as insurance companies to do anything at all.

Bob Miller| 2.14.12 @ 10:13AM

(corrected)
If one grab for dictatorial power doesn't work, Obama tries to sneak in another. Obama has no right to order religious organizations to violate their principles OR to order companies such as insurance companies to do anything at all.

canuckistani| 2.14.12 @ 10:23AM

Yes he does, and women - even your women are thanking him for it.
If churches want to play in the civil game, then they must play its rules.

George S| 2.14.12 @ 11:04AM

You want the churches to adhere to the rules but not Obama (the Constitution is THE rulebook)? Where in the Constitution does the president have the power to tell private citizens what they must sell or buy? Again, the Constitution is the rules. Do you agree with obeying rules? Do you think everyone should follow rules?

jmulcahy| 2.15.12 @ 6:45AM

Canuckistani does not understand the US Constitution. The President will cave on this and the Supreme Court will rule the mandate unconstitutional.

martin j smith| 2.14.12 @ 10:58AM

Although the matter is of religious freedom the real issue is a lawless President. Those who do not see what is at stake in 2012 and that is the entire US Constitutional System and why Romney is a terrible choice --well that is too sad.

RJ| 2.14.12 @ 11:02AM

Another classic article, Deroy. Thanks.

This issue is an illustration of how dictatorial government has become in every day matters in our lives. Secondly, for all those liberals who seek to enforce "separation of church and state" where is it that people can practice their religion when the nanny state is everywhere and requires religion to withdraw where ever the government is present? The flip side of separation of church and state is that the government needs to withdraw back within its Constitutional limits.

Oldefarte| 2.14.12 @ 11:06AM

Wait now folks, give Obama a break! This is his subversive effort toward reducing the governmental defecit/debt; since when poor indigent women stop giving birth to their futuristically poor indigent childen, the welfare expense of government will decrease [therefore inpoving Obama's governmental budget numbers]. There is however a huge impediment to his governmental dictate requiring insurance coverage of birth control methods in that the inclosed instructions for same will no doubt be not comprehendable by its users, thereby requiring an increase in the governmental budget expenses from the need to hire/employ extra agents/representatives by the government in order to provide instruction to these indigent poor welfare beneficiaries of these birth control devices. Oh well, nothing is ever simply is it?????

George S| 2.14.12 @ 11:09AM

While his article is clear and concise, we are again getting sucked into the details. By arguing over birth control, we are making the endgame about getting rid of one small provision while ignoring the big picture: the law itself.

We should be screaming at the law. Once we start arguing its fine points, we tacitly accept the premise of its totality. I have a feeling Obama wants this arguments for this exact reason.

Mike 3/505| 2.14.12 @ 1:24PM

You are still thinking to small...It's not just the law....It's the total philosophy in all thing liberal...Not just OBAMACARE...but the Department of Education....Housing and Urban Development...all such things...all demonstrations of egregious Federal overreach. The "pre-clearance" aspect of the voting rights act is yet another.

spike59| 2.15.12 @ 6:56AM

EXACTLY, Mike! instead of fiddling about the details of 'this and that' Administration power grab, we need to keep the FACT of the power grab in mind

Indy| 2.14.12 @ 11:32AM

I think many are missing the mark on this mandate, it is purposely meant to be confrontational and a warning to insurance companies. This mandate is all about control, the long term plan of ObamaCare is to destroy insurance companies and move to a single payer plan.

Who will insure Catholic Institutions if they have to absorb the costs for "free" care? Was there a massive outcry for free birth control? No, of course not, it's already available under Title X. The morning after pill and coverage for sterilization too, at no cost. The State is attacking religion. Congress stupidly gave power to HHS, this mandate is only the beginning of what is to come.

Insurance companies are supposed to spend 80% (I think that's the number) on care, squeezing profit margins is the goal of this, the more they have to provide for free...bye, bye insurance companies.

Clint| 2.14.12 @ 8:20PM

Apparently, Axelrod & Obama Have Calculated That It Would Be More Advantageous To Stick Romney To This HHS Mandate Tar Baby, Than Be Concerned About Giving Primary Advantage To Ricky Santorum.

"In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.

Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.