Boinkie's Blog


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

conspiracy theory

Heh. The anti Catholic move by the Obama adminsitration was to screw the republican party as being 'against contraception".

This is not my opinion, but the analyst of Dick Morris. Apparently, the decision was made awhile back, and the press went along with the talking points.

A long article at the Not work friendly FR site.

I usually wouldn't take it seriously, except that Dick Morris, who used to work for Bill Clinton, is discussing it, and also because yesterday while looking up an unrelated item, I ran across this blogpost that included several links to articles that essentially said the same thing...

now, how would a scripture scholar have all those talking points so quickly to post on his website?

and here is the PC take at Mother Jones

quick: How many logical errors can you find?

All catholic bishops hate women and are pedophiles or pedophile enablers.
All catholics use birth control so what is the big deal (GetReligion analyses this false statistic HERE).

Guttmacher did say in its summary that “Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same, 98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women.”

But that’s not in any way an accurate statement of what its own survey found.

On the very same page, it explains that its survey was restricted to women aged 15-44, so that cuts out all women who were older than 44 at the time of the survey. And a footnote explains that a rather significant chunk of women were excluded from this figure of “all women” — namely, women who are pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant.” A later footnote says that the only women who had sex in the last three months were included in this group. Finally, included in this 98 percent figure of current contraceptive users are the 11 percent who report no method.

Then you hear that Catholic institutions already pay for it (except they often don't: Those who work for them often pay a "rider" that allows this, so the separate part of the policy, like dental insurance that in the US is not routinely part of your health insurance, is an extra add on)

The payment by catholic institutions was voluntary (One site mentioned DePaul University pays after they were sued by the EEOC, if this is true, the local bishop should have them countersue).
etc. etc. etc.

also what is not being noted: That the regulation doesn't only require church related institutions to buy contraception/abortifactant medicines as part of their insurance policy, but that ALL insurance policies will cover it.

Catholic hospitals, schools, charities, institutions: Check.
EWTN, which self insures (i.e. they have their own insurance policy for their members): check.
Employees who in the past chose insurance policies that didn't cover these things: Check.
Those of us who are self employed and pay for our own private insurance: check.

Someone wrote that the only way now to get out of paying for abortive medicine/contraception is to leave the country.

I'm going to have to check on my insurance policy, which covers me here but is based in the USA...

so the administration plans to attack religion to destroy his political enemies?

And they would use lies to do so?

I'm not a big political type, but I always heard that the combination of lies and deathmaking was dangerous.

But when the head of the Catholic health organization lets the white house release a statement saying that her organization backs the so called reforms , and does so before the so called reforms were announced, it makes you wonder. It especially makes you wonder when she does so very quickly, without having to bother to check the members of her organization.

This webpage suggests they have been getting a bit of flack on the matter:

CHA Will Review the Proposed New Rules for the HHS Mandate

CHA looks forward to reviewing the specifics of the changes in the mandated benefits. Many members have called with questions about these since they were a concern as first published. On Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, we were notified that our organizations would not have to buy or refer employees for contraception and other services. We were also told that the self-insured plans would be accommodated in this. At this time, there are many unanswered questions about specifics. We now have the challenging work of reviewing the proposed rules, examining their impact and giving input before they are finalized.

Because many members have asked about specifics in the rules and also the process for applying for the one-year exception, we have included links to the rules and to the guidance on the safe harbor with this email.

As more is known about this, we will be getting that information out to the membership as quickly as possible.

Yup. Sounds like their email was full this weekend with complaints. Notice the subtle way they put it?

here's another slimy article on how the bishops chose to "dialogue" with them LINK

During the panel discussion with Sr. Carol, Bishop Lynch noted that relationships between bishops and Catholic health care leaders are "back on track" nationally following some highly publicized fissures in 2010. However, Archbishop Kurtz said relationships on "the grassroots level" may be less consistently stable. "That's an opportunity" for improvement, he said.

If I remember, the bishops were worried that the administration would pull a fast one on them, and now that this has happened, maybe it will be a time for soul searching.


Volume 28, Number 3

Something has to be fixed

CHA president and chief executive officer

CHA and its members were profoundly disappointed to learn that the definition of a religious employer was not going to be broadened in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' rules for preventive services for women.

The impact of being told we do not fit the new definition of a religious employer and therefore cannot operate our ministries following our consciences has jolted us. The contributions of Catholic health care, education and social services to this country's development are legion. They have responded to the needs of all, not just Catholics. They have been delivered by many who do not share our faith, but share our commitment.

From President Thomas Jefferson to President Barack Obama, we have been promised a respect for appropriate religious freedom. The first amendment to our Constitution affirms it. We are a pluralistic country, and it takes respectful dialogue to sort this out fairly. This decision was a missed opportunity.

CHA has expressed concern and disappointment about this on behalf of the ministry. We have said the problem is not resolved, and we must have a national conversation on this. CHA is working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities USA, the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities and others to look at options to resolve this. We will be discussing it at the CHA board meeting on Feb. 8.

all this sounds great: Until of course til you get to the last sentence:

I assure you that we will use the time to pursue a correction during the one-year extension.

translation: No, we won't say no. we will think about it.

We will give this issue priority and consult with members and experts as we evaluate options to deal with this.

translation: No guys, really. Let's think about it. Stop writing all those nasty emails.

Any suggestions, comments or questions are welcome.

pretty please with sugar on it: stop those nasty emails that we should go along with the church's teaching.

I promise to keep the membership informed as we move along in this effort.

until I go on CNN next week to back the president and praise him for giving us a year and the election is over until we decide to shaft the bishops publicly.

Please keep this important effort in your prayers as well.

yeah, sure.

excuse my cynicism, but I give it two or three days until Sister is back there praising the president instead of the church on CNN.

But it does seem that those nasty emails might have done something...maybe giving her an ulcer on her delete button finger.

Of course, it could be worse: The Philippine RH bill, if passed, will fine you 200 dollars if you even criticize the bill.

and if Wikileaks is to be believed, it is being pushed down the throat of Filipinos by US taxpayer money.


  • The key word is PLAN vs INSURANCE.

    What they are saying, is that they will give you a discount on what you will pay. So to get your teeth clean, if the dentist charges $88, you might get a discount of $10, so you pay $78, out of YOUR own pocket. The 20% for specialist, could mean if the specialist charges $300, you pay $240 out of your pocket. They don't state the % discount for all services, only for specialists. Now you have a problem, since what if the dentist you go to is not on their dental plan?

    By Anonymous costa mesa dentist, at 11:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home