Congresman Joe Courtney responds to my HHS madate qurey

Dear Ms. Velasquez,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of health insurance plan coverage of contraceptive services. 

As you know, in August 2011 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a set of interim rules that would require most health insurance plans to cover preventative health services for women, including access to contraceptive services without a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. Included in this new rule was an exception for non-profit religious employers such as houses of worship and other institutions whose primary purpose is to spread their faith. For most employers covered under the rule, the new coverage requirements would go into effect on August 1, 2012. However, on January 20, 2012, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the deadline for implementation for church-affiliated institutions such as schools, hospitals, and other organizations would be delayed until August 1, 2013.

The decision by HHS to exempt church health plans, but not church-affiliated institutions such as colleges and hospitals, has generated strong debate on both sides of the issue. The Department maintains that its rule follows the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine – a non-governmental body of physicians and health experts – to include birth control coverage, which the vast majority of American families have utilized for decades. However, this rule has run into resistance from leaders of many faiths who object to a regulation to require the purchase of birth control coverage that runs counter to religious belief. While HHS believes that such objections were addressed through the exemption for houses of worship and a one year delay in implementation for church-affiliated institutions, critics of the rule believe that these steps do not go far enough in addressing their concerns.

It is important to note that this rule would not go into effect for church-affiliated institutions until August 2013, providing significant time for this issue to continue to be reviewed and for alternatives to be proposed to address the concerns of religious institutions. In light of the concerns raised by this rule, I am pleased that the White House has indicated that it would consider alternative methods to provide access to contraceptive services without forcing religious institutions to pay for such coverage. I strongly support this approach, and am hopeful that such a resolution, using existing models from states around the country, can be found. Another possible alternative would be to "grandfather" existing health plans that do not currently include contraceptive coverage and allow such plans to continue to be offered. 

Please be assured that I understand and appreciate your views and concerns about this issue, and will keep them in mind as this rule continues to be reviewed by Congress and the White House. It is worth noting that the willingness of the White House to reconsider alternatives is a direct result of the input of individuals like you. 

Again, thank you for sharing your views on this issue with me. Should you have any additional comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. For more information on my work in Congress, please visit my website at courtney.house.govand sign up for my e-newsletter at  courtney.house.gov/forms/ emailsignup . You can also connect with me at facebook.com/joecourtney or receive updates from twitter.com/ repjoecourtney .

 

Sincerely, JOE COURTNEY Member of Congress

Why Catholics should not vote for Congressman Joe Courtney (D, CT)

I'm new to Connecticut, but my Congressman knows me. I first met Joe Courtney when I was fuming about the union thugs lined up at the door of his one and only Town Hall meeting in August of 2009. The union members were lined up with signs in front of Montville HS, shouting and waving pro-Obamacare signs. They were loaded for bear. I was muttering about their being on the clock, when I turned and saw Joe Courtney behind me.
The union members were obviously on his side, for they were the ones who guarded the door to the auditorium where the meeting was conducted, and decided who entered.
Those of us with pro-life signs were left waiting in the vestibule. When, after an hour, I was finally admitted without my sign, I was greeted by a debacle. Two loud-mouthed union bosses in the back of the auditorium shouted down any attempt at honest questioning, and no attempt was made to stop them.
I left that meeting with a very bad taste in my mouth about Joe Courtney's partisanship. Not a month later, I was in Washington DC to participate in the Healthcare for Gunner Press Conference on Capitol Hill, and ran into Cong Courtney crossing the street to do a press conference on education. I had a group of parents of disabled children who had been lobbying Senator Lieberman about Obamacare with me, and asked him about his vote on the plan. When he asserted that he would be voting for Obamacare, I promised him I would support his opponent in the next election.
Here's what Juan O'Callaghan has to say about Courtney and Obamacare,

In regard to one of the real critical issues of the current times, Courtney whole-heartedly championed Obamacare, a disastrously flawed law that will decimate seniors in the decades ahead, in terms of cost escalation and care reduction:  A law that will also undoubtedly be manipulated to allow federal funding of abortions in due course, expanding the number of annual abortions by up to 30% (Guttmacher’s related analysis) and which could reinstate the banned late-term Partial Birth Abortion procedure.

Here is an excellent post by Juan O'Callaghan's CCCF blog on the true nature of Joe Courtney, a Catholic whose voting record is closely aligned with that of fellow Catholic, Nancy Pelosi.. Although Janet Peckinpaugh, is not pro-life, it's time to vote Courtney out.

Read the entire post here. 

The damage done by JFK

I wrote here about the near worship Catholics gave John F Kennedy in the 1960's which was extended to Robert and Teddy, even down to Patrick and Maria Shriver. Was this adulation warranted? Did JFK erect more barriers than he smashed by promising to seperate his personal Catholic beliefs from his political career becoming the first Catholic president?
Archbishop Charles Chaput, in this address to Houston Baptist Univeristy says "yes".

Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He had one purpose. He needed to convince 300 uneasy Protestant ministers, and the country at large, that a Catholic like himself could serve loyally as our nation’s chief executive. Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected. And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics. It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong. Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life. And he wasn’t merely “wrong.” His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation. Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.

It's time for faithful Christians to ignore the false barrier between Church and State erected by Justice Black in 1947, and enage fully in the political process. Our morals and character are urgently needed as salt and light  in a culture of death which is rapidly becoming a totalitarian aetheist state.
Obama talks about the familiar Christian principles of charity and love of neighbor, but his actions belie his words. His administration is promoting abortion, homosexuality, alienation of children from their parents, barring poor children from good schools,  as the schoolteachers move into the role of moral guides, and, perhaps most ominous of all, his administration is intimidating those who would protest. Remember David Axelrod's list of those who are speaking against the health care plan? I signed up, and I hope you did. We Christians need to be on record at times like these as opponents of such draconian tactics. Yes, it may cost us, but someday we will have to face the Just Judge who has entrusted us to live in times like these for a reason.
Its an uphill battle and it hurts more when seedy politicans like Nancy Pelosi lie to the bishops saying there is no funding of abortion in the health care bill. Or when she asks legislators to pass it "to find out what's in it". But we are living in the Church militant, and while 500 Christians are being hacked to death in Nigeria by militant Muslims, staging an ongoing protest to abortion funding and moral decline is a comparatively small burden.
Call your Representatives and tell them you oppose the health care bill as it stands, supporting abortion.


Read the entire speech on MercatorNet.

Maaaatha Coakley says devout Catholics should not work in Emergency Rooms

The hotter than hot Senate race in ( whoda thunk-it) Massachusetts just reached the boiling point. Scott Brown is pulling ahead, and, as if to help him,  Maaatha Coakley just put her foot in her mouth.

Martha Coakley, a Catholic herself,  in an interview quoted on Jill Stanek's blog stated that if Catholics were obedient to the teachings of their Church on life issues, they'd better not work in the ER.

Coakley: I would not pass a bill, as Scott Brown filed amendment, to say that if people believe that they don't want to provide services that are required under the law and under to Roe vs. Wade that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer to that question is no. And let's be clear, 'cause Scott Brown filed an amendment to a bill in MA that would say that hospital and emergency room personnel could deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in and been raped.
Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don't want to do that.
Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.
Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.
Coakley: (... uh, eh...um..) The law says that people are allowed to

Massachusetts is the most Catholic state in the nation. Will Catholics stand for such a blatant attack on their faith? Or are too many of them living sinful lives, which violate the Church's prohibitions of birth control and abortion, living in sin as unmarried couples to care about this open assault on Catholic teaching? Americans are fair-minded people, if they don't obey a moral law, they are gentler to others who have the same moral weakness. Just look at how the bishops of CT allowed Plan B to be used in cases of rape in Catholic ERs in Connecticut. The State Legislature was poised to allow conscience protections, and the bishops made it clear that they were comfortable with this violation of the ban on birth control and abortion. Plan B is more than birth control, it may cause a baby already conceived not to implant on the uterine wall, thus causing an early abortion. So Catholics in CT are obviously too far gone to put up a fight to confront assaults on Catholic teaching.
Lets hope that our neighbors to the North have learned from our sorry example.
The next few days should be a test of what is left of Catholicism in Massachusetts. Are Catholics finally willing to become Catholics first and Democrat Kennedy syncophants second?
Cardinal O'Malley, we know you can't endorse a candidate, however, wouldn't this be a good time to remind your flock of Canon 915? Archbishop Burke has taken this occasion to remind Catholics that they are Catholic first, especially in the voting booth.

“The minister of justice bears a most heavy burden, the burden of emptying himself of himself, in order to have God alone before His eyes, in declaring what is just and right on behalf of his fellow citizens.”
However, according to the archbishop, the current society is one which is hostile to the true administration of justice, trying “to force individuals and institutions to cooperate in egregious violations of the natural moral law.”

“In such a society, the administration of justice is no longer a participation in the justice of God, an obedient response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, but a façade cloaking our own selfishness and refusal to give our lives for the sake of the good of all our brothers and sisters.”

Bill Donohue never hesitates to jump into the melee when Catholicism is under attack:

When Martha Coakley, a Roman Catholic, was asked whether she supports conscience rights for health care employees, she offered a resounding “NO.” So completely wedded to the extremists in the pro-abortion community, Coakley would not allow Catholic doctors and nurses—who unlike her accept the teachings of Catholicism—to recuse themselves from participating in procedures they find morally repugnant

Coakley said that if she were asked to consider a bill that would say “if people believe that they don’t want to provide services that are required under the law and under Roe v. Wade, that they can individually decide to not follow the law. The answer is no.” When asked by host Ken Pittman about the rights of Catholics who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, Coakley offered the separation of church and state mantra. Pittman then said, “In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.” Coakley conceded that point but hastened to add, “you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.” Translated: You really don’t have a right to exercise your religious-liberty objections.

This is the opinion of the attorney general, the chief law enforcement agent in the state of Massachusetts. She effectively told practicing Catholics who work in the health care industry that they ought to get another job. As far as she is concerned, those who invoke a right to conscientious objection—a staple of religious liberty—should lose.

President Obama says he supports conscience rights for health care workers. The Catholic bishops support conscience rights. Survey after survey show that the American people support conscience rights. But Martha Coakley does not—she says they’re all wrong. Glad to know which side of religious liberty she is on.

We in  Conncecticut have Plan B abortifcacient contraceptives used in our Catholic hospital emergency rooms. We have gay marriage, which will soon be taught to innocent children in our public schools. We are also a very Catholic state which has lost its way. We need theleadership of a man with a backbone  like Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island. We need a good example of our neighbors to our north who are about to vote in a pro-life man for the first time in many, many years.
Go Scott Brown!
Long live Catholicism in Massacusetts!

Senator/Dr Tom Coburn; healthcare bill is hazardous to your health

My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

Dr Coburn details, point by point, the provisions in the bill which will undermine the doctor-patient relationship, and access to doctors in the first place. This is without the public option. He uses statistics and his experience as a family physician who has saved lives.
This bill must be buried once and for all, for the lives of the most fragile among us, which could be you someday.
Questions anyone?

Read the entire article in the Wall Street Journal.

$10K Marriage penalty in health care plan premiums

Citizen Link has the following observation on Obamacare; married couples will be penalized while those living in sin will reap rewards. Just the first installment in the social engineering hidden in this dangerous legisltion. A closer look at premium payments in both the House and Senate health care bills shows higher premiums that might discourage couples from tying the knot.

For instance, in the House version, an unmarried couple each making $30,000 a year would pay $1,320 combined each year for private health insurance. If that couple chose to marry, their premium would jump to $12,000 a year, a difference of $10,680.



Allen Quist, a former Minnesota State legislator and current candidate for Congress, discovered the penalty while looking at numbers from the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor.
"This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360," he wrote in a blog post. "A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger."

The Senate bill includes a similar penalty.
"The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance," Quist wrote. "Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance — a penalty of $9,183 for getting married."

The numbers are based on the government's definition of "poverty level." Those above poverty level will pay higher premiums, and the excess would be redistributed to those in lower income levels.
Quist explains that the government's definitions will play a critical role in whether people will choose to get married.

"'Household' is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes, thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried," he wrote. "The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so."

John Helmberger, CEO of the Minnesota Family Council and Institute, said the middle class will once again take the hit financially.
"This hidden marriage penalty," he said, "hits hardest the very people that are most suffering from the pathologies resulting from the decline of marriage in our culture."

I attended the marriage of two young Catholics Friday. It occured to me, as I listened to the sweetly sung rendition of "Panis Angelicus" that what this wonderful young couple was doing was profoundly counter-cultural, and that though it may bring them joy and eternal life, being married today may cost them a lot in the temporal world. Especially if this health care plan is passed.