jump to navigation

Muslims and Amish May Opt Out Of Obamacare free of any Penalties April 6, 2010

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment

by randyedye

EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

-In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information:

In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.”

Senate Bill, H.R. 3590, pages 273-274

There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is “haraam”, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. More…

This means that if you are Christian and abortion is against your religion tough luck.

If you are Jewish tough luck as well.

We wonder why these certain groups get a free ride. We also wonder why the largest religious block in North and South America the Christians are discriminated against like this. Very odd indeed.

There is a lot of food for thought here and a lot of ways to object to this healthcare bill isn’t there.

Stupak’s Abortion Bombshell: Dems Argue Kids Cost Money so Abortion is Good March 15, 2010

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment

by Bungalow Bill

Bart Stupak has come forward with a stunning revelation. The Democrats in the House of Representatives, the same people who want to provide you healthcare and claim their are no plans to ration care, have just dropped a bomb.

According to Bart Stupak, abortion remains the dividing issue for Democrats to agree on healthcare. It might be the issue that finally defeats healthcare, which is interesting when you consider Obama promised federal money would not be used to fund abortions in the plan. Stupak offered insight about the debate going on in the House.

“I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.”

“If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.” (From Gateway Pundit)

If Democrats are using abortion for population control to save money, what makes you think they won’t use healthcare rationing of the elderly and sick to save money as well? When you go back and study the history of abortion in American and look at the eugenic beliefs of Margaret Sanger, who wanted to use abortion to control the black population in America, it’s not hard to connect today’s political climate to the Dems push for abortion in the current bill. Kids cost money, as well kids exhale CO2 and use natural resources as well.

One of the key beliefs in the environmental left, which is pushing this by the way, a fact that is often overlooked, is the idea of population control to save the earth. It’s time to start connecting the dots before it’s too late. This is about money, but it goes much further as well. You have to start looking into this as population control as well. If the government can regulate our behavior through taxes and laws that ban salt and other items they deem unhealthy, couldn’t they just as easily regulate population controls? Of course they could.

Martha Coakley is Instructing Catholics Where Not to Work January 17, 2010

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment

by Bungalow Bill

Last time I looked, Massachusetts has a huge Catholic population. Thanks to the ignorance of Martha Coakley emergency rooms across the state may soon be short of employees. Her solution for Catholics who oppose abortion is simply not work in emergency rooms. She cites the separation between church and state as the reason, a total distortion of the Constitution.

First off, who gets abortion an abortion in an emergency room? This woman is a ditz. I am sure it could happen to save a woman’s life, but the instance Coakley described would be referred to an abortion clinic, not a hospital’s emergency room. None the less, she recommends Catholics shouldn’t work in hospitals and emergency rooms if they oppose her abortion views.

Nurse, Assist In The Abortion…or We’ll Terminate You! December 14, 2009

Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a comment

By Cassy Fiano

nurse_abortion

This is certainly not an unusual case, or else we wouldn’t have federal statutes to prevent it. In New York, a Catholic nurse was forced to participate in abortion, despite the fact that her supervisors knew of her moral objection to it. When she initially refused, they threatened her job.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Catholic nurse who was forced to participate in an abortion, despite voicing her moral objections.

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, was instructed to assist in a late second-trimester abortion for a woman 22 weeks into her pregnancy. The hospital had known of the nurse’s religious objections to abortion since she was hired in 2004.

Cenzon-DeCarlo reminded her supervisors of her religious objections, but was told that if she did not participate, she would be charged with “insubordination and patient abandonment,” which could result in disciplinary action and the possible loss of her job and nursing license

Hospital officials told Cenzon-DeCarlo that the situation was an “emergency,” although evidence suggests that this was not the case. The hospital itself labeled the case as a “Category II,” meaning that the operation needed to take place within six hours. This would have allowed enough time to find another nurse without moral objections to assisting in the abortion, her lawyers said.

Matt Bowman, legal counsel for the ADF, explained that the hospital could not legally have required the nurse to participate in the abortion even if the case had been a “Category I,” meaning that the patient required “immediate surgical intervention for life or limb threatening conditions.” Federal statutes prohibit recipients of federal health funds from requiring employees to perform abortions, Bowman told CNA.

However, the evidence in the case suggested that the patient was not even at the “Category II” level, as the hospital had claimed. When the woman was brought into the room, Cenzon-DeCarlo observed no indications that the case was a medical emergency. The woman’s blood pressure was not at a crisis level, and standard procedures for patients in crisis had not been taken. Yet the nurse was still required to aid in the abortion.

When CNA contacted Mount Sinai, officials refused to comment or explain why the nurse was asked to participate in the abortion. Officials stated that they would not comment because a lawsuit is pending.

Now, the ADF has filed a lawsuit against Mount Sinai for violating Cenzon-DeCarlo’s rights of conscience.

… Earlier this month, President Obama promised that a “robust conscience clause” would be forthcoming, but critics are skeptical after his earlier decision to repeal conscience provisions put in place by the Bush administration.

My first thought is how cruel this is — to force someone to participate in something that they have such a strong moral objection to. If her supervisors knew of her objections to performing abortions for five years now, and then forced her to assist one anyways, then that seems to me like a petty, cruel thing to do. As explained in the article, the hospital is claiming that the patient was a Category II case, meaning the operation needed to take place within six hours. That would have been more than enough time to find a nurse without moral objections to perform the abortion. Yet instead, they sought out the Catholic nurse who they knew had moral and religious objections to abortion, and forced her to do it. That is cruel, and unnecessarily so.

Unfortunately, this is all too common and in a variety of ways. It’s mostly thanks to feminists who howl in rage if anyone has a moral objection against anything they feel is a “reproductive right”. Doctors and nurses who don’t want to perform abortions, pharmacists who don’t want to dispense the morning after pill or contraception… they’re all told that they’re required to do these things and if they don’t like it, to get out of their field. Organizations like Pharmacists for Life International find themselves the target of feminist wrath. And whether it’s regarding pharmacists, doctors, or nurses, the end point is still the same each time: it’s about restricting choice. This is America, where free-market capitalism is supposed to reign. A business owner can operate his or her business how they want to. They can sell whatever goods or products they want to — and likewise, refuse to sell whatever goods or products they don’t want to sell. Customers, meanwhile, are free to shop wherever they choose. If they don’t like a pharmacy that refuses to sell contraception, or a doctor’s office that won’t perform abortions, they can go elsewhere. Some people though — ironically, most so-called pro-choicers — don’t want people to have that choice, though. Abortion is legal, so therefore, all doctors and nurses must be willing to perform it, no matter what their religious and moral principles tell them.

What’s worrying is how prevalent these cases may become if Obama’s government run healthcare reform passes. Obama is arguably the most extreme pro-abortion president we’ve ever had. This is the guy who voted three times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would guarantee medical treatment for babies who survive abortions. He’s repealing conscience provisions put in place by President Bush. If his health care reform passes, complete with the inevitable more taxpayer funding for abortion, what kind of protection are pro-life doctors and nurses going to have? My guess would be very little. Hopefully Cenzon-DeCarlo wins her suit.

No one should have to be forced to do something that they feel goes against their religious and moral principles. But in Obama’s hopier, changier America, is that where we’re heading?

comments click here