Obama's HHS "Compromise" Just Adds Insult to Injury

Obama's "diffusing" of the contraception issue is no compromise at all.

First he arrogantly mandated that Catholic hospitals provide their employees birth control and abortion pills. The only acknowledgement to Catholics was that they had "one year to comply with the mandate." How generous of them.

Now, since only because it's an election year, Obama felt the heat from groups seeing his bald faced attack on the First Amendment which guarantees the "free exercise of religion" and used his unwavering guile to craft a cynical "compromise." The compromise is this: that Catholic institutions, instead of directly giving their employees contraceptives and abortion pills themselves, must now instead purchase the plan - that the Catholic institutions must buy - that deliver the contraceptives for free. How clever. However it's a backdoor trick to get the Church to pay for the contraceptives without a paper trail. It's pure legalese - from the lawyer Obama. The only reason Obama is doing this is to avoid a legal paper trail leading back to the Catholic Church which would in turn "free him" from being accused of violating the First Amendment.

However Obama is just adding insult to injury. It’s like telling a religious organization in 1850 that everybody, including them, must provide your employees with a slave because “everybody is entitled to free labor.” Then the religious organization says, “no, not us” only to have the government retort that “okay, then you must pay for the slave trading costs, but not directly provide the slaves yourselves.”

Is that just? No.

About 100 years ago the Mexican Government began writing into law provisions that suppressed the practice of Catholicism. It began with one Constitutional inclusion. We can now see it beginning to unfurl today in America with Obama's latest legal provision forcing Catholic institutions to embrace his secular ideas and reject Catholic Church Teachings. The chronology of events leading to the open cold blooded murder of Catholics by the Mexican Government is captured hereand summarized below:

Calling themselves the 'Constitutionalists', the secular party that won election claimed "that they were not persecuting the Catholic religion but wanted to reduce the Church’s political influence. The Constitutionalists did not at first take any formal action."

But as their power grew and so their arrogance, they began to take more bold measures to suppress Catholicism:

"Anti-clerical elements were included in 1917 Mexican Constitution. Five elements in the Constitution were aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs. Article 3 enforced secular education in Mexican schools. Monastic vows and institutes were outlawed in Article 5. Article 24 prevented public worship outside the confines of the Church buildings. According to article 27, "religious institutions were denied the right to acquire, hold, or administer real property." Furthermore, all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property. Finally, in article 130, it declared all basic civil responsibilities like voting or commenting on public affairs was taken away from Church officials. The Mexican government was extremely harsh in their attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church’s legal existence in Mexico. The stern premises of the 1917 Constitution contributed to the rise of resentment between the church and state."

To repeat:

"all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property."

Is this much different under Obama? No. It is exactly the Obama Doctrine. We all recall hearing the media ask about and discuss "the Bush doctrine". Even Charlie Gibson belittled Sarah Palin for not immediately knowing "the Bush doctrine". But while the media never asks anybody, anybody at all, the question, "what is the Obama doctrine?", then Obama feels he has free space to implement his radical doctrines and agendas that systematically strip America of its freedoms.

Pelosi and Obama Ushering in the Persecution of Catholics

Like corrupt governments of old and banana republics of today, the Obama administration is starting to push around religion. And surprisingly, Roman Catholics are the ones both behind it and backing it. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Roman Catholic, announced the provision as part of Obamacare. Then, Nancy Pelosi, the self-acclaimed queen of Catholic political culture, decided to join the suppression of the free practice of the faith and morals that Catholics are guaranteed in the First Amendment. According to a CNS article:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) vowed today that she will join with the Obama administration in standing up against the Catholic Church in defending a new regulation that will require Catholic individuals to buy, and Catholic institutions to provide, health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and artificial contraceptives, including those that induce abortions."

About 100 years ago the Mexican Government began writing into law provisions that suppressed the practice of Catholicism. It began with one Constitutional inclusion. We can now see it beginning to unfurl today in America with Obama's latest legal provision forcing Catholic institutions to embrace his secular ideas and reject Catholic Church Teachings. The chronology of events leading to the open cold blooded murder of Catholics by the Mexican Government is captured here and summarized below:

Calling themselves the 'Constitutionalists', the secular party that won election claimed "that they were not persecuting the Catholic religion but wanted to reduce the Church’s political influence. The Constitutionalists did not at first take any formal action."

But as their power grew and so their arrogance, they began to take more bold measures to suppress Catholicism:

"Anti-clerical elements were included in 1917 Mexican Constitution. Five elements in the Constitution were aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs. Article 3 enforced secular education in Mexican schools. Monastic vows and institutes were outlawed in Article 5. Article 24 prevented public worship outside the confines of the Church buildings. According to article 27, "religious institutions were denied the right to acquire, hold, or administer real property." Furthermore, all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property. Finally, in article 130, it declared all basic civil responsibilities like voting or commenting on public affairs was taken away from Church officials. The Mexican government was extremely harsh in their attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church’s legal existence in Mexico. The stern premises of the 1917 Constitution contributed to the rise of resentment between the church and state."

To repeat:

" . . . Article 3 prohibited the Church from engaging in primary education; Article 5 outlawed monastic orders; Article 24 forbade public worship outside the confines of churches; and Article 27 placed restrictions on the right of religious organizations to hold property. Most obnoxious to Catholics was Article 130, which deprived clergy members of basic political rights."

One more time:

"all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property."

The early 20th century president of Mexico Madera lured support by making grand promises of reform and prosperity - none of which ever came. According to Wikipedia: "Madero's vague promises of agrarian reforms attracted many of the peasants throughout Mexico."

The Mexican Government became even more corrupt when in Plutarco Calles took power:

"For eight years after these provisions were instituted, they were not rigorously enforced by the Mexican government. This changed in 1926 when Plutarco Elías Calles reinforced laws to decrease clerical power. In June 1926, Calles recognized a decree often referred to as “Calles Law.” Under this provision, Article 130 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution was re-established. Church officials were upset by the suddenness of Calles’ decision. The regulation, which annoyed the Catholic Church, was Article 19, which decreed the compulsory registration of the clergy, for it allowed the Government to hand over churches."

So do we ask ourselves, are we repeating history here in the United States of America, the land of the free that formed its First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights which guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

or we remain steadfast that our Bill of Rights applies to all American citizens in their religious practice? Does America really want to look like early 20th century Mexico, or like the land of the free that it was framed to become and remain?