Why Catholics Should be Insulted by the Obama “Compromise”

There’s been an avalanche of reaction to and commentary on the “compromise” President Obama offered yesterday at lunchtime.

I want to share my reaction: I’m insulted.

It’s simply insulting to our intelligence that the President would propose that Catholics sign a document which, while not saying explicitly it will pay for abortion pills, contraception and sterilization, we all KNOW for a fact will pay for these things.

Maybe such a disingenuous ploy is enough to assuage the conscience of the President, but it’s simply insulting to presume that Catholics would go along with such a gimmick.

More from me soon, but this is my first reaction. I hope it is yours as well.

2,884 views

Categories:Uncategorized

37 thoughts on “Why Catholics Should be Insulted by the Obama “Compromise”

  1. Francis Wippel says:

    Thomas,

    My first reaction to this ‘compromise’ was also to be insulted by it.

    It is as if President Obama believes we’re stupid. He actually thinks that we don’t understand that we will be paying the insurance company to offer this coverage.

    Thankfully, the bishops have stood their ground, and as such, this is far from over. Barring further movement by the administration, the bishops (along with EWTN and Belmont Abbey and hopefully others) will see Obama in court.

    What bothers me the most about this entire episode is that the Catholic Church even needed to request an exemption. Why? It is as if the President has no regard for the Constitution. Or maybe as Mark Steyn suggested, Obama has gone “Henry VIII” on the Catholic Church.

    The President may not like the Constitution as it is written, but that fact alone doesn’t allow him to ignore it as his whim.

  2. candide001 says:

    You guys just don’t get it. Your archaic superstitious belief system is being rejected by the industrialized West. Relocate to Africa. There are plenty of uneducated rubes there who will buy into your imaginary, authoritarian world view. The affluent West has outgrown your nonsense. You need to go away. You’ve done enough harm.

  3. obrallaghan says:

    Even Greg Mankiw, Professor at Economics at Harvard, said this on his blog found @ http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/ :

    “Semantics at the Highest Level
    Consider these two policies:

    A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

    B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

    I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.

    Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.”

    1. Mike R says:

      Spot on!

  4. Julie T. says:

    In case you didn’t catch this and why it is important: I caught the re-broadcast of this on C-Span today. On Thursday, the United States (Democrat controlled) Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the merits of broadcasting Supreme Court hearings live. Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Scalia appeared before the committee and gave cogent arguments why Supreme Court hearings should be free of broadcast media. However, the committee chairman, the very liberal Senator Leahy rebutted with a condescending statement extolling the benefits of real-time broadcasting. In the course of his speech, Senator Leahy gave away what might be the reason why Senate Democrats are pressing for it. The Supreme Court will be hearing the case on the legality of President Obama’s healthcare law. At some point, they will also hear the case on the legality of same-sex “marriage,” with other contentious matters to follow. Is it just me or does anyone else detect a very political motive–directed by the White House–with this push by the Senate? I have to wonder, What are they up to now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.