Published on June 9, 2012 By lulapilgrim In Current Events
In my blog entitled, For Greater Gloryhttp://forums.joeuser.com/426259, I wrote that I think the release of this film is very timely and may help us gain a better understanding of the seriousness of the current Obama administration's attack on our freedom of religion in the form of his HHS mandate.
 
 
 
Denver archbishop: HHS mandate an attempt to remove religion from society
By Hillary Senour

.- Denver's newly-appointed archbishop says the federal contraception mandate is the result of a larger push to remove religion from the public sphere.

“Essentially what people are saying to us is, 'We want you to pretend you're agnostic or atheist like us, and that is the way society should be,'” Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila explained to CNA on May 28, as he assessed the thinking that made the mandate possible.

“Today what is happening is that those who do not want faith in the public square are really saying, 'It's our lack of faith, our unbelief that we want you to follow,'” he said.

Archbishop Aquila, who was announced as the new Archbishop of Denver on May 29, called the federal mandate a direct infringement on the First Amendment that is simply another example of  “the erosion of religious liberties” which has been occurring for some time.

“It's the violation of our consciences and it is the violation of religious liberty,” he said. 

In its current form, the federal contraception mandate would force employers to purchase health insurance to cover birth control, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, announced a narrow “exemption” from the mandate for religious organizations that serve and employ only members of their own faith on Feb. 10.

Since then, 43 Catholic organizations across the country, including dioceses, charities, hospitals and universities, have filed lawsuits against the Obama administration on the grounds of religious liberty.

Bishops from every diocese in the U.S. have spoken out against the mandate, warning that it poses a serious threat to religious liberty and could force such organizations to shut down.

Archbishop Aquila said that he would “continue to speak out” against the mandate and will “ help people to recognize the violation that is taking place.”

Christians, he said, should do the same, even if doing so is unpopular.

“If we become martyrs, so be it,” he said. “It is for the Lord that we do it.”

Although such comments may sound pessimistic, the archbishop said that history has already proved that the Catholic Church is able to withstand such opposition.

Throughout the 2,000 year history of Christianity, “there have been the rise and fall of many governments,” Archbishop Aquila said, “but the Church is still here.”

 


Comments (Page 7)
on Mar 01, 2013
 

Catholic Physicians Have to Wake Up! Bishop Robert Vasa

 
 
 

Those “Who Think the Mandate Will Not Touch
Them Are Either Naive or Foolish”

Bishop Robert Vasa

Bishop Robert Vasa

St. Paul, MN By Tim Drake (National Catholic Register) — Conscience rights’ protection and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contraception mandate were the topics foremost on the minds of medical professionals gathered in St. Paul, Minn., for the Catholic Medical Association’s (CMA) 81st educational conference.

“These are critical times,” said Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa, Calif. “Whether or not a physician is practicing in line with the teachings of the Church, they’re going to be forced to do something they may not want to do.”

“This is a clarion call for America,” added Bishop Vasa. “American Catholics, and in particular American Catholic physicians, have to wake up to the fact that they can no longer presume that their individual choices about how they practice medicine in this country will be respected.”

“Physicians are being coerced to do things that they know are wrong, such as prescribing contraceptives, abortion or prescribing a lethal dose of medication,” said Bishop Vasa. “They’re told that their individual conscience doesn’t matter, that they must do these things, and if they do not, they may lose their ability to practice medicine.”

“Those who are standing on the sidelines who think the mandate will not touch them are either naive or foolish,” added Bishop Vasa. “They may think they don’t have a dog in this fight, but it won’t stop at contraception.”

on Mar 06, 2013

Breast cancer spike raises concerns about ObamaCare mandate, abortion

by Ben Johnson

  • Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:24 EST

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 4, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recent study finding a marked increase in the worst cases of breast cancer has led some pro-lifers to ask if the Obama administration's promotion of contraception and abortion will raise the chances of more young American women developing the life-threatening disease.

 

A report by Rebecca Johnson, pubished in the Journal of the American Medical Association on February 27, found that the incidence of advanced breast cancer for women ages 25-39 has increased nearly 90 percent in 33 years.

In these cases, the cancer had spread from the breast to other parts of the body before being diagnosed. This level of cancer rose from 1.53 percent in 1976 to 2.90 percent in 2009.

The fatality rate of advanced cases is more than five times higher than among other stages of breast cancer.

Some in the pro-life movement say the Obama administration's health care policies will increase the disease's deadly toll.

“Many more young women are at risk for developing advanced breast cancer in the future because of an ObamaCare mandate requiring employers to purchase insurance that will provide 'free' cancer-causing hormonal contraceptive steroids and abortion-inducing drugs,” said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

“Abortion and use of hormonal contraceptive steroids among teenagers are the elephants in the living room that the medical establishment ignores,” she said. “It doesn’t matter to government officials how many lives are destroyed because of it.”

Although the strong link between oral contraception and breast cancer is well known, the Obama administration has championed “free” access to the pill as fundamental women's health care.

Because of the tensions between politics and science, international organizations have a conflicted relationshiop with the birth control pill, which is simultaneously declared a “human right” by the UN Population Fund and a Group One carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

 

The National Cancer Institute notes that oral contraceptives are also associated with increased cervical cancer, as well as liver tumors.

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast surgical oncologist and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, has called the oral contraceptive pill a “molotov cocktail” for breast cancer.

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute also says that there is a link between abortion and increased breast cancer. Malec told LifeSiteNews.com last year that “52 out of 68 [epidemiological] studies now show” an independent link between abortion and breast cancer.

The JAMA article noted that black women had a higher rate of advanced breast cancer than non-Hispanic white women.

Malec asked, “Is this any wonder when the abortion rate for African American women is more than double that of white women?”

Malec said the fact that the paper did not offer a hypothesis about the increase was “peculiar but not surprising.” 

Related Stories

Rick Santorum raises abortion-breast cancer link

Surgeon: birth control pill a ‘molotov cocktail’ for breast cancer

World Health Organization Classifies Contraceptives as Highly Carcinogenic

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breast-cancer-spikes-raises-concerns-about-obamacare-mandate-abortion?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a90268c984-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_03_04_2013&utm_medium=email

 

on May 31, 2013

help us gain a better understanding of the seriousness of the current Obama administration's attack on our freedom of religion in the form of his HHS mandate.

To add to the malicious mix, we now have the IRS scandal....

Archbishop Chaput on Religious Freedom
"The day when Americans could take the Founders' understanding of religious freedom as a given is over. We need to wake up."

By Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

PHILADELPHIA, May 24, 2013 (Zenit.org) - Here is this week's column by Archbishop Charles Chaput for the CatholicPhilly.

* * *

“IRS officials have, of course, confessed that they inappropriately targeted conservative groups — especially those with ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their names — for extra scrutiny when they sought non-profit status. Allegations of abuse or harassment have since broadened to include groups conducting grassroots projects to ‘make America a better place to live,’ to promote classes about the U.S. Constitution or to raise support for Israel.

“However, it now appears the IRS also challenged some individuals and religious groups that, while defending key elements of their faith traditions, have criticized projects dear to the current White House, such as health-care reform, abortion rights and same-sex marriage.”

Terry Mattingly, director, Washington Journalism Center; weekly column, May 22

Let’s begin this week with a simple statement of fact.  America’s Catholic bishops started pressing for adequate health-care coverage for all of our nation’s people decades before the current administration took office.  In the Christian tradition, basic medical care is a matter of social justice and human dignity.  Even now, even with the financial and structural flaws that critics believe undermine the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the bishops continue to share the goal of real health-care reform and affordable medical care for all Americans.

But health care has now morphed into a religious liberty issue provoked entirely – and needlessly — by the current White House.  Despite a few small concessions under pressure, the administration refuses to withdraw or reasonably modify a Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive mandate that violates the moral and religious convictions of many individuals, private employers and religiously affiliated and inspired organizations.

Coupled with the White House’s refusal to uphold the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and its astonishing disregard for the unique nature of religious freedom displayed by its arguments in a 9-0 defeat in the 2012 Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court decision, the HHS mandate can only be understood as a form of coercion.  Access to inexpensive contraception is a problem nowhere in the United States.  The mandate is thus an ideological statement; the imposition of a preferential option for infertility.  And if millions of Americans disagree with it on principle – too bad.

The fraud at the heart of our nation’s “reproductive rights” vocabulary runs very deep and very high.  In his April 26 remarks to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the president never once used the word “abortion,” despite the ongoing Kermit Gosnell trial in Philadelphia and despite Planned Parenthood’s massive role in the abortion industry.

Likewise, as Anthony Esolen recently noted so well, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s public statement on the conviction of abortionist Gosnell was a masterpiece of corrupt and misleading language.  Gosnell was found guilty of murdering three infants, but no such mention was made anywhere in the NARAL Pro-Choice America statement.

None of this is finally surprising. Christians concerned for the rights of unborn children, as well as for their mothers, have dealt with bias in the media and dishonesty from the nation’s abortion syndicate for 40 years.  But there’s a special lesson in our current situation.  Anyone who thinks that our country’s neuralgic sexuality issues can somehow be worked out respectfully in the public square in the years ahead, without a parallel and vigorous defense of religious freedom, had better think again.

As Mollie HemingwayStephen Krason and Wayne Laugesen have all pointed out, the current IRS scandal – involving IRS targeting of “conservative” organizations – also has a religious dimension.  Selective IRS pressure on religious individuals and organizations has drawn very little media attention.  Nor should we expect any, any time soon, for reasons Hemingway outlines for the Intercollegiate Review. But the latest IRS ugliness is a hint of the treatment disfavored religious groups may face in the future, if we sleep through the national discussion of religious liberty now.

The day when Americans could take the Founders’ understanding of religious freedom as a given is over.  We need to wake up.

on Jun 26, 2013

 

SCOTUS Rulings Don't Change True Definition of Marriage         

 

 

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia - Human Life International President Father Shenan J. Boquet expressed disappointment today with the United States Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8, but said that no matter what the Court decided, God's definition of marriage has not, and will not change, and must continue to be defended.

"Since marriage is an institution that predates any government, the nature and definition of marriage were never in doubt, and thus could not justly be changed by any court or vote," said Father Boquet. "Marriage still is, and has always been, a covenant by which one man and one woman establish a partnership for life that is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children."

"We must continue to demand that our political leaders recognize and protect this most natural institution especially in this time of intense bigotry and discrimination toward those who defend marriage in the public square," said Father Boquet.

"Most Americans know that this debate over marriage will never ultimately be settled by the Court, for at least two reasons," said Father Boquet. "First, those who are leading the assault on marriage have demonstrated again and again their disdain for laws that defend marriage and for the will of those with whom they disagree. Theirs is a crusade against both faith and reason, and they are no more likely to stop with a court decision than are the defenders of marriage."

"Second," he said, "the definition of marriage is not determined by any court or any legislative vote. A just nation recognizes and upholds the true meaning of marriage for the common good of the people and the institutions of the nation."

"Our larger task remains the same - to remind all people of good will that without marriage, there is no prosperous and unified future for any nation," Father Boquet said. "As the lifetime, faithful, and life-welcoming union of one woman and one man, marriage is naturally the best place to welcome children into the world and form them in love and truth. The more a society understands this natural fact, the healthier and more unified it will be. The more this natural fact is attacked, the more divided we will become, needing ever more expensive governmental solutions (welfare, prisons, etc.) to compensate for the natural good that has been discarded."

"Finally we note that these decisions do not bode well for the freedom of those religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, who can only uphold the true definition of marriage. We expect that persecution of the Church will increase as opponents of true marriage demand that no dissent be tolerated, and that religious institutions participate in performing 'marriage' ceremonies for same-sex couples or suffer charges of discrimination. We are prepared for these inevitable events, and we stand in solidarity and hope with all who defend marriage."

 

About HLI: Human Life International: For the Glory of God and defense of Life, Faith and Family. Founded in 1981, HLI is the world's largest international pro-life and pro-family organization, with affiliates and associates in over 80 countries on six continents. www.hli.org

on Jun 27, 2013

The legal decision was the right one legally.  It wasn't the right one spiritually, but then again, passing the law in the first place wasn't legal.

 

This is a state issue that needs to be decided state by state - if the states do not protect this new 'class' then there will not be any class for the Supreme Court to give equal protection to.

on Jun 29, 2013

 

The legal decision was the right one legally. It wasn't the right one spiritually, but then again, passing the law in the first place wasn't legal. This is a state issue that needs to be decided state by state - if the states do not protect this new 'class' then there will not be any class for the Supreme Court to give equal protection to.

Jythier,

I'm surprised by your response and can't figure out your thinking except to say you seem to have fallen for the radical homosexual activists pursuing their agenda trap.

This is a state issue that needs to be decided state by state

The "this" you are talking about is Marriage, right?

And one goal of the homosexual movement is changing the definition of Marriage as a union between one man and one woman to that of a union between two men or two women, right?

The legal decision was the right one legally.

The legal decision of a majority of SCOTUS was to change the definition of Marriage..so how can that be the right one legally?

 

 

on Jun 29, 2013

The legal decision was the right one legally. It wasn't the right one spiritually, but then again, passing the law in the first place wasn't legal.

RE: the highlighted.....What do you mean...that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined for federal purposes that marriage was only between one man and one woman wasn't legal?

 

 

on Jul 01, 2013

Yes, that was unconstitutional.  It's up to the different states to define what marriage is.  The fact that 11 or so states have gotten it wrong is the problem, not that the Supreme Court told the Feds that it wasn't their place to define it.

The real problem with the decision, though, is that it included a lot of language that will later be used to say that the STATE laws that define a marriage as a man and a woman unconstitutional, which will be when the Supreme Court jumps the shark on this particular issue.  Until they do, how can we allow the Federal Government to decide matters that are outside of their stated powers to decide?  States have rights and they have been failing to uphold those rights for too long.