WEATHERFeb 21
2012
To the Editor:
This letter responds to Hilary Grant’s support of Obama’s attack on religion.
I am not Catholic, but I support religious freedom. Requiring Catholics to provide free contraception is forcing a religious institution to ignore their faith and obey the government.
Obama spins it nicely, saying, “Catholics won’t have to pay for contraception because their insurance companies will provide it free of charge.” Who really believes anything in life is “free”? Premiums will go up for everyone; so directly or indirectly, Obama is forcing Catholics to pay up.
I am also one of the “99-percent sexually experienced women in this country who have used birth control,” as Hilary eloquently stated; but if I work in a Catholic institution, I would never make them provide it.
I also believe in using electricity. Should we force Amish into electric cooperatives because their neighbors want it?
Hilary argues everyone should have the right to choose, but why does that require someone else pay for it? We’re talking about contraception — the most easily accessible and cheapest medication out there. If a woman can’t afford it, she can go to Planned Parenthood and get it cheap.
The Catholic Church is one of the most charitable organizations in the world, and they are being slapped across the face. The government can’t have it both ways. You want the church out of the government? Keep the government out of the church!
The president isn’t standing strong for women; he’s kicking down the church door and Hilary applauds him.
— Caryn Huizen, Grand Haven Township
Print
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Email
Comments
Share your thoughts and opinions with your community. All comments on our site are governed by our Discussion Guidelines. You must have a valid account to post comments.
09:35 PM
markhuizen says
According to liberal logic, "accepting federal dollars" means taking Medicare patients.... so maybe instead Catholic Hospitals should just post on their doors – “We do not accept Medicare or Medicaid” and “Only Catholics Need Apply”. BUT WAIT! The federal government won’t allow them to do that. What liberals fail to understand is that you are not giving women free birth control pills, you are giving the federal government a new power to assert the latest whim. You are giving the federal government POWER to force employers to provide something against their will. What will they do when there are right wing religious nut jobs in the White House and Congress who want to force all employers to purchase a bible for those who want one? Too far of a stretch? By whose definition? The 2nd amendment clearly states I have the right to bear arms. But gee, I can’t afford a gun because I just bought a Lexus (kind of like birth control pills and a Georgetown University education) …. so I want my anti-gun liberal employer to provide a gun for me! Too far of a stretch? Remember, if you give the FEDERAL government the power at some point it can and will be used against you. Be careful what you wish for liberals! Again, this is not about birth control pills – this is about forcing an employer to provide something against their will. This is about religious institutions to deny their faith. There are no boundaries.12:15 PM
Lanivan says
To Boater and Cmuchrys33 - It seems that the thing about this topic that concerns you the most is "Big" government gaining more and more control over another institution - this time the Catholic Church and its institutions. I don't think any of us would want to see our government take over the Catholic Church - do you really think that would/could happen? But as many of the Catholic hospitals are NFP hospitals (not for profit), this status affords them tax-exempt status IF they agree to providing community benefits, i.e., promoting health to a broad class of people. By the same token, Catholic hospitals also accept Federal tax dollars for maintaining their hospitals. I stand by my belief that if you choose to enter the secular institutional world, based on a NFP status, and accept Federal tax dollars, you should follow the dictates of the Federal government. Or change your status and starting paying taxes, or close your doors. Some hospitals have done just that. And by the way, as I understand it, the new health care reform bill does not make the Church directly provide birth control, but the insurance company that provides the hospital it's insurance coverage will cover birth control.09:10 PM
markhuizen says
So the Catholic Church Bishops are now on record that if this mandate stands they will close the doors to all of their hospitals (one-sixth of the total) How is this going to affect a woman's health (and men's and children's health) Of course the federal government doesn't want to take over the church, just their hospitals, so they can and will remove the crosses and other icons. What a great plan.04:49 PM
Boater says
Lanivan, if you don't agree with what happens at a Catholic Hospital, don't go to a Catholic Hospital. It's really that easy. Caryn is right. Government must stay out of the Catholic Church. What is next? Catholics won't be able to display the cross in a Catholic Hospital because it may offend some of you??? It's insane. Obama's policies have divided this country, he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, but in his words "the Constitution gets in the way". We are now living in a nation where less than half of its citizens pay income tax, yet those who do are told they aren't paying their fair share. Obama must go in November along with his idiotic policies that are damaging our nation.05:46 PM
BigRicky says
I totally agree with you Boater. No one is forced to get treated at a Catholic hospital. No one is forced to work at a Catholic hospital. If someone does not agree with the church's position, they are free to choose a non-Catholic hospital. End of discussion.This is truely a slippery slope when the government starts mandating that a religious organization do something that is against it's commonly known views and positions. This CLEARLY violates the first amendment.
10:04 AM
cmuchrys33 says
Very well said, Caryn! It's a slippery slope when the government starts forcing religious institutions to do things that they find gravely immoral. It's interesting that the president and those who support this mandate are trying to spin the issue to make it one of "women's health" and preventative" medicine. Did you know that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the WHO, classifies Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives as a group 1 carcinogen? Asbestos is also in that group. Also, a Mayo Clinic study found, "Oral contraceptives are associated with an increase in premenopausal breast cancer risk, especially among women who use OCs before first full term pregnancy." (http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61152-X/fulltext#cesec70) Is that preventative medicine?02:43 PM
MarketMan2012 says
I agree with Lanivan! President Obama has shown that he is all "encompassing" in his approach to leading this nation. I don't really know how it can be viewed otherwise. Caryn Huizen States that the government can't have it both ways in terms of separation of church and state. Let’s be honest with ourselves though. Politicians bring their religious viewpoints into all political conversations. Hence some of the concerns from republicans that Romney is Mormon. Unfortunately the two can't be separated. There will always be voters that back politicians that "best reflect" their religious opinions. Teabags anyone? Frankly Caryn, If you want the government to not have it both ways, maybe you need to understand that you can't have it both ways either!09:26 PM
markhuizen says
Hey MarketMan2012 - this is Caryn Huizen to whom you're slamming. At least I publish with my name and am willing to take a stand. Why don't you Cowboy Up and publish your name with your hate speech? Your point that politicians bring religious view points therefore government & church are entwined is like saying heterosexual politicians can't be in favor of gay marriage. You are absolutely off target and moot.02:00 PM
Lou says
Well said Lanivan! I couldn't agree more. It goes both ways.06:17 PM
sobe says
Yes!! Very well put Lanivan!01:18 PM
Lanivan says
Religious freedom means just that - one does not have the right to expect others who do not share their beliefs to abide by them. I believe the Catholic Church does great work worldwide in the areas of mission outreach, but when the Church enters the secular world of hospitals and general health care for all within a secular institutional, it should be expected to follow the secular rules within that sphere. When it forces it's religious doctrine on it's non-Catholic patients, is that religious freedom? I just read an article in the New York Times that tells of Catholic hospitals that will not perform a tubal litigation on Caesarean Section patients - a two minute, very safe procedure when done under those circumstances. Instead, the patient is required to schedule it later at a non-Catholic hospital - this has got to cost insurance companies lots of money, with a possible increase in premiums. Catholic hospitals should be required to provide birth control treatments and procedures just like any other hospital - Catholic patients and employees who do not believe in birth control for themselves can choose not to partake in it. And as for President Obama, he's a far greater supporter of all women, of all nationalities, religions, and backgrounds - that is, the great pool of American women that make up about one-half of the general population - than most of the politicians who want government to control, manipulate, and marginalize women's reproductive health concerns based on some personal ideology.