NYT Lets Liberals Boost Obama Admin. Attack on Religious Groups
John H. Cushman, Jr. of the New York Times almost completely slanted to the left in his Friday article about the Obama administration's decision to force religious organizations to include free contraception in their employee insurance plans. Cushman quoted from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, liberal Senator Barbara Boxer and the president of notorious pro-abortion "Catholics for Choice," but only included a six-word quote from the other side of the debate.
The writer led his post on the liberal paper's political blog, The Caucus, by noting that "the Obama administration said it would give religious organizations one additional year to comply with a new policy requiring employers to provide free contraception services in insurance plans. Roman Catholic bishops and other church leaders had protested the new rules, which were announced in August."
Cushman then acted as stenographer for the White House by stating that the new mandate was "designed to drive down the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion by making birth control available under the preventive health care services that all insurers must cover without a deductible or co-payment." He added that "churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship were already exempt, but some religious leaders wanted the exemption broadly expanded. Instead, the administration said after considering the request that non-profit institutions like hospitals and universities affiliated with churches could take a year longer to comply."
Towards the end of the article, the New York Times journalist included three quotes from Sebelius, one from Senator Boxer, and from Jon O'Brien of "Catholics for Choice," a group which was repeatedly been denounced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for its support of abortion. Speaking of the Catholic bishops, Cushman again acknowledged their opposition to the new mandate by including the paltry six-word quote.
"This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule," Ms. Sebelius said. "We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support."
"I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services," she said.
Catholic bishops had called the rule "an unprecedented attack on religious liberty."
But Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, welcomed the decision as "a victory for common sense and scientific advice in the interests of the common good."
Congressional Democrats had lobbied the White House against expanding the religious exemption also cheered the move.
"This is a critical step forward for women’s health that will prevent abortions and ensure that millions of American families have access to affordable birth control," said Senator Barbara Boxer of California in a statement.
Apparently, the writer couldn't be bothered to find the Friday statement from New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who spoke on behalf of the bishops' conference: "To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
Even some Catholic Democrats expressed reservations about the mandate. Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter, a publication which dissents from Catholic teaching in several key areas, labeled the HHS decision a "disaster," and blunted stated that the Obama administration had "jumped over the First Amendment to coerce religious organizations to do something we find morally objectionable. They have given people who loved the Affordable Care Act reason for pause, great pause. They have given the Republicans a huge battering ram with which to beat swing voting Catholics over the head."
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Go ahead and try, Obama!
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 6:24pm.
"the Obama administration said it would give religious organizations one additional year to comply with a new policy requiring employers to provide free contraception services in insurance plans. Roman Catholic bishops and other church leaders had protested the new rules, which were announced in August."
Go ahead and try to force that compliance, Obama. The Church only needs to fire the employees who insist on this "coverage," and, guess what? there's NOTHING you can do about it! The Supreme Court has already ruled on how religious organizations have control over their employees, and how they can be fired for rejecting or opposing religious doctrine, like a doctrine that denies medial insurance coverage for contraception. You don't have a say in that matter! HA HA!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
For a party
Submitted by bobsmom on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 6:52pm.
that has a fit if someone even thinks about saying a prayer in school, they sure can't stop themselves from meddling in religion. We have the right to be free from government sponsored religion, doesn't religion have the right to be free from government intervention?
Paging
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 7:03pm.
Paging mamabear.....Hello?.....come in..mamabear...
kudos to the ant*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 8:53pm.
Wasn't the ant just days ago predicting "a thousand cuts"? And wasn't someone constantly denying a "war against Christians"?.....hmmm
IIRC, grislybear commented that conservatives were---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 9:35pm.
'whining' about' media attacks on religious beliefs; or maybe she said religious entities, as though said attacks were being imagined.
Regardless, the bear is liberal, through and through.
The end.
MD
cajun and md
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:00pm.
Pretty decent timing for a big story of this nature...I feel justified..is that the right word? I dunno...md, you're better with words than I. This too, reminds me, I believe it was written into Obamacare, and referenced in complaints from the Church in this story,..the regime and Dems have sought a narrow-definition of 'religious groups' with stipulations designed as usual, to open up the field for deceit and shenanigans. Things such as, any religious group that helps/offers aid to a large percentage of people that are NOT of the same religion may fall outside the left's 'definition'. How transparently sinister is that? Obviously, too, there aren't too many islamic groups offering comfort to Christians, Jews, or Buddhists so they would be considered protected religion while Christianity with all it's outside charity work would not.
Almost, ant, as though someone, somewhere, were---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:22pm.
deliberately shaping arguments or sanctions against Christianity while being actively engaged in the opposite regarding Islam, that will be applicable outside the parameters of ObamaCare.
The points you made in your back and forth with grislybear, vis-a-vis general media condemnation of the Christian outlook, and pertaining to specific results that will soon be in evidence, have indeed, been borne out; sad to say.
A good job, regardless, with your debate skills.
MD
agree ant*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:27pm.
It is, to me, a three fold purpose to these kind of government regulations. When you look at the numerous new regulations from many different agencies and executive orders, these efforts all have a common purpose. First, there are those who wish to have big government control all aspects of our lives. Remove individual rights to "group rights". Then identify which groups have the most rights. Call it OWS, evil corporations, political elites, or class warfare. There are many names. Drsam and I have been watching the efforts of some to change the definitions of "mental illness". All designed to remove individual responsibility for ones behavior which allows for fewer boundaries which allows for more perversions.
By attacking Christians and "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom of religion", they are defining the governments role in control of religion. Most people believe that liberals are behind all of these efforts. I disagree. There are three different groups working to destroy American free society. There are the liberals who believe in a nanny state but with no social or moral boundaries. Those who wish to live a hedonistic life because their main focus is always themselves. Then there is the true open agenda to bring communism and dictatorial leadership to this country. The purpose of so messianic, they believe in ONE world order, one global society. The other group, quietly hiding behind the curtain, is radical Islam. They are the ones supporting the OWS groups as much as the communist/marxists. Their purpose is to establish a foothold in our laws to include Sharia. Once that is done, we will very much look like Europe which is in obvious decline and increasing violence.
All of these efforts by various groups are designed, by a thousand cuts, in incremental steps, to create chaos through class and race warfare. This will reach a stage where our country will be ripe for revolution. This is not just cajun talking with a tin foil hat. This has been done many times before in history. Radicals have written detailed books on how to bring about this very scenario that we see playing out now right before us.
There will always be those who cannot see, those that will deny the connection between these events. That is how millions died in Europe before anyone even took notice. They were called "useful idiots". Start with the media. It was Van Jones himself who used Saul Alinsky tactics...." bottom up, top down,inside out.."....Bits and pieces of legislation, executive orders, thousands of pages of "regulations", destroy the capitalist system, create dependency, lower boundaries and standards of behavior, destroy individual rights, ignore the constitution.
We are indeed living in historic times.
md and cajun
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 12:57am.
Again, I must agree. If what you have said, cajun, is 'tinfoil hat' territory, rip me off a sheet of Reynolds Wrap. As you said, anyone that follows the news closely should be seeing the assembling of insidious forces. The left really makes no secret of their desires. Not anymore anyway.
disagree on one point ant*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 1:10am.
The "conspiracy" as I call it is not manipulated by the media. The media is being manipulated into thinking they are helping bring along true socialist equality. Being the useful idiots they are, they do not see the true agenda and it aint EQUALITY.
All you have to do is look at who are Obama's biggest supporters. Look at his "czars" and agency heads. All socialist with a Global Society in mind. The same as Soros and his One World Order. Read carefully the official government agency websites and they will "confess" to the bits and pieces of regulations, than when reviewed in its larger imperatives, clearly indicates this administrations true agenda. Anything anti-capitalist, create total dependency on the government by creating economic crises, create anger with class warfare, empower administration, disarm the military.
Keep looking. The pieces are there. As drsam would say...you can't be paranoid when someone is actually shooting at ya.
I wonder if B. Hussein Obama will force this on his precious...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 7:07pm.
...Muslims?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
The left howls when they even
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 01/20/2012 - 8:21pm.
The left howls when they even think religion is in the public square but they have NO problem when the government interferes with people's religious convictions. Where's the SCOTUS?
Obama imposing his will on the churches
Submitted by Steve Cakouros on Sat, 01/21/2012 - 5:22pm.
This is over-reach hard core over-reach. I am incensed.
Milton Friedman was right liberals want freedom for themselves but not for others.
We simply have to rid the nation of Obama. He is a danger to liberty.