Last night on Sunday Night Prime with Father Benedict Groeschel on EWTN he had Archbishop Dolan on as a guest and of course they talked about the lack of exceptions for religious institutions with the Health and Inhuman Services mandate.

One interesting piece of information is that Archbishop Dolan talked about his meeting with the President in November of 2011 after the initial ruling by HHS.  He said he was given three assurances that the exemption would be opened up and specifically President Obama said that protecting the consciences of religious people was his “highest duty.”  The Archbishop walked out of that meeting expecting a change.

So did President Obama lie to Archbishop Dolan’s face? Probably not and at the time I would guess he was considering expanding the exemption to some degree.  Considering just how pro-abortion his administration is they were not going to let the President go “wobbly” on this.  Though if the President is as Machiavellian as some people would assert, then telling an Archbishop the opposite of the truth stopped any opposition that could have been built up prior to the Feb 2012 announcement.

When the President called Archbishop Dolan the news that they were not changing a thing the Archbishop’s reaction was of course to ask him why he had flip-flopped on this.  The Archbishop asked rhetorically “Do we have to get permission to follow are faith?”

This reminds me of the meetings between the New York bishop’s conference and state politicians about the then upcoming same-sex marriage laws and how they were given assurances that it would not pass.

There is a reason we pray “Put no trust in princes.”

Al Kresta in reaction to the press conference Friday from the President said “a press conference is not a policy.” Ed Haislmaier & Jennifer A. Marshall wrting in the National Review Online relate what actually happened Friday.

The bottom line is this: “Accordingly, the amendment to the interim final rule with comment period amending 45 CFR 147.130(a)(1)(iv) which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 46621-46626 on August 3, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.” [Emphasis added.]

Translation: The Obama administration Friday afternoon put into federal law the very regulation that drew objections from almost 200 Catholic bishops, some 50 religiously affiliated colleges and universities, 65 North American bishops of Orthodox churches, numerous other Jewish, Evangelical and Lutheran leaders, and even some liberals — and without changing so much as a comma.

Or in other words “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from Obamacare, till all be fulfilled.”  Thus sayeth the god-King.

From this point forward, any changes to this regulation have to go through the formal regulatory process all over again.

The administration admits as much in the preamble to these regulations when it states that Treasury, Labor, and HHS “plan to initiate a rulemaking to require issuers to offer insurance without contraception coverage to such an employer (or plan sponsor) and simultaneously to offer contraceptive coverage directly to the employer’s plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it, with no cost-sharing. Under this approach, the Departments will also require that, in this circumstance, there be no charge for the contraceptive coverage.”

Thus, instead of delaying final regulations until they could be revised to reflect the prospective changes President Obama outlined Friday, the administration went ahead and locked into regulation its original position, accompanied by a (non-binding) promise to revisit the issue.

The President famously  promised an “aggressive” diplomatic drive and face-to-face talks with Iran’s leaders  as a way to resolve conflicts.  Of course actually talking with U.S. bishops prior to his supposed “compromised” that was severely compromised was not required.  Maybe if the USCCB develops a nuclear weapons program they would get some more serious consideration.

How this will all end is hard tell at this point.  Right now there is a game of chicken being played between the Obama Administration and Catholics (and well-wishers from other faiths and groups).  Neither have blinked yet and are still racing towards the other.   I see no evidence in the Presidents character for him to back down or admit any mistake – a common politician’s failing.

Despite renewed statements of concern by Catholic leaders, the Obama administration is done negotiating and will finalize its plan requiring insurance companies to provide free contraception to women working and studying at religious institutions, President Obama’s chief of staff said Sunday.

Jacob Lew told “Fox News Sunday” that the compromise offered last week to address objections by the Catholic Church is clear and consistent with the president’s “very deep belief that a woman has a right to all forms of preventive health care, including contraception.”

“We have set out our policy,” Lew said. “We are going to finalize it in the final rules, but I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties, and we think that’s the right approach.” [Via Creative Minority Report]

So the President is an allowed a “very deep belief” and Catholics are not allowed a deeply held conviction, in fact teaching,  backed up by the whole history of the Church extending back to the book of Genesis.  Pro-choice once again means choice for me, but not for you.

It is also illustrative in how they form the argument as a women’s health issue.  What they are actually advocating for is both contraception and sterilization coverage for both men and women.  Yet almost all the arguments made take up the “women’s health” issue.  This is of course the pregnancy-as-discease focus where men are just carriers of the disease and women the victims.  They are not only calling this a right, but including in that right the demand that employers contribute to it agains their own consciences.  More evidence of the erosion of rights where everything is a right except what is in the Bill of Rights.  Rights that are wrong would be delicious irony if it wasn’t so bile-tasting going down.

In my view I believe that massive pressure must be maintained against the Obama Administration regarding this, but the President and his administration is not going to resolve this in a satisfactory way.  Most likely legislation such as the “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act” (HR 1179/S. 1467)” bill is what will be required. Quite a sad commentary that we need legislation  for something explicitly stated in the Constitution. So this is where most of the effort should be placed to get this through the Congress and then the Senate.  The Congress part should be rather easy, less so the Senate where of course it will be framed by the media as anything but a religious rights issue.

The other path to overturning this is overturning the Obama Administration by voting him out of office.  I wish this was as sure a deal as so many commentators say it is, but I have grown wise enough through bitter disappointment to no longer ever assert with any confidence such an outcome.  Too many times I thought no way could some politician get reelected only to see them reelected.

As Mark Shea writes “Resist the Tyrant”.

*Appropriately received this image in an email today.

I can’t believe how tone death the White House is. I had signed the petition at the White House site regarding the HHS mandate. Today I got an email from By Cecilia Muñoz, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council assuring me how great the compromise is.

This is what I can hardly believe. They actually included statements from Planned Parenthood and NARAL about how great the compromise was. I never use profanity on my blog, but I am sorely tempted here. Do they understand nothing? Do they truly think people that signed this petition would be satisfied with statements from those groups? Talk about living in a bubble.

Oh and note to the Catholic Health Association when they use your statement along with Planned Parenthood and NARAL you really need to rethink what you are doing. Shame on them for promoting Obamacare in the first place and double shame to give the compromise any backing whatsoever.

Jimmy Akin writes that the supposed compromise from President Obama is even more evil.

The new policy mandates that insurance companies offer free sterilization, contraception, and abortion-causing drugs as part of their policies. According to President Obama himself:

Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

Got that?

That’s worse than before.

Under the previous evil policy if you worked for an exempt organization—say, a church—then your employer could offer you an insurance plan that did not include sterilization, contraception, and abortion drugs.

Now there will be no such plans.

It is hard not to infer bad will on the part of the President. This is a Potemkin Village of a compromise, one that if you actually look at it you realize that there is nothing there. Worse it is a masquerade hiding something even worse than the original HHS mandate.

Plus you really have to wonder what magical land of economic theories he believes in. Though I guess he is economically consistent since none of his economic ideas are part of reality. I doubt that there is even a multi-verse where money is not fungible or that businesses take a economic hit and don’t pass it along to the consumer in some way.

By the logic of his economic ideas we could end hunger by having grocery stores simply provide free food.

This is also very insulting that he thinks we are so stupid that an economic gimmick is going to salve our consciences. The only thing they care about is for people to get contraception and sterilization at a perceived lower cost and if freedom of religion gets trampled along the way, oh well.

Back to Jimmy Akin:

The idea that it will be insurance companies that pay for such services is just a shell game. Where are insurance companies going to get the money to pay for these services? They aren’t the Federal Reserve. They aren’t empowered to create money out of nothing the way the Federal Reserve is.
If they’re going to pay doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to provide these things then they are going to pay for them with money they got from someone else.

Who else?

Why! The very same churches, church-related organizations, and individuals who are otherwise paying.

The USCCB has issued a statement that is very diplomatic in terms. Some thing this is a cave, but I trust Archbishop Dolan much more that that. Sure I would have liked a statement that was less diplomatic and I certainly would not call this a “first step in the right direction.” It is a first step, but a first step backwards since the compromise is even worse. A generous interpretation is to see the administration working towards a compromise, but I think seriously they only want a pretense of a compromise.

This probably will provide them with enough cover and I would be very surprised if the liberal Catholics who objected to the mandate would now withdraw their objection. I wish my skepticism to be proven wrong here.

This simply can’t not stand and must be fought tooth and nail and prayer and fasting.

Update: Their is now a more complete and much better statement from the USCCB. Via Te Deum laudamus! They say “Rescission of mandate only complete solution”, I would go farther and say repealing of Obmacare is the only complete solution since this it was caused such government overreach in the first place. We need to go farther than providing religious groups and an exemption, but allow every American employer to follow the dictates of his conscience.

Ladies and gentlemen, I feel your pain. Ever since Santorum was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, I have regarded him as a particularly off-putting character. But the strength of the feelings that Santorum evokes pretty much explains why the former Pennsylvania senator, even at this late stage, could put a serious fright into Mitt Romney, and, just conceivably, could take him down.

To educated liberals of almost any description, Santorum is an abomination. It’s not just that he’s a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-contraception Roman Catholic of the most retrogressive and diehard Opus Dei variety. It’s his entire persona. With his seven kids, his Jaycee fashion code, his nineteen-seventies colonial MacMansion in northern Virginia, his irony bypass, he seems to delight in outraging self-styled urban sophisticates: the sort of folks who buy organic milk, watch The Daily Show, and read the New York Times (and The New Yorker, of course). [Source]

First off I am surprised he used the term “educated liberals”, doesn’t that go without saying for them?

Wow, if you wanted a paragraph example to showcase blatant anti-Catholicsm this is an appropriately vile example. Traits of abomination include being a faithful Catholic and actually having more than one or two children. Understanding the reality of the natural law and homosexual acts of course makes you “anti-gay” and beyond the pale. Strangely abomination even includes I guess wearing sweater vests which I guess is s a crime agains hipsterism.

That he uses the word abomination is also indicative. An abomination is something that causes extreme disgust or hatred and this article is full of hatred. Proving once again Catholics are not one of the protected groups when it comes to so-called hate crimes. Tweet something that outrages homosexual activists during the Super Bowl and you are suspended, write some nauseatingly anti-Catholic piece and you will have no such worries.

But of course a faithful Catholic are an abomination for modern liberals. The Church’s teaching on marriage and every teaching that flows from it such as its opposition to divorce, contraception, homosexual acts drives them crazy. That the Church’s teaching has inner consistency across the board is also greatly annoying to them since what they advocate in inconsistent at every level. For the modern liberal you are allowed to be Catholic just as long as you dissent where they want you to consent. They never call our liberal Catholics for hypocrisy and actually belonging to a Church whose teaching they hate, but yet are outraged at Catholics who actually follow Jesus and his Church.

Faithful Catholics are an abomination because they refuse to live in an Obama Nation of moral relativism and consignment of their consciences to a political correct filter where you can only object to what they allow you to object to.

Now I have my problems with Sen. Santorum in the areas he is not a faithful Catholic such as his support of waterboarding, but articles like this are growing as they see his outside chance being slightly less an outside chance. If Sen. Santorum actually gets the nomination or wins more primaries we will see a media blitz against him that will surpass what we saw done with Sarah Palin. How long till Andrew Sullivan starts questioning whose the real mother of their youngest child. Another liberal abomination is actually allowing a child with down syndrome to live. We read lots of dire predictions in the press about anti-Mormonism with Gov. Romney, but of course we will not see the same type of articles on anti-Catholicism since it does not meet their template since it exposes them instead.

The recent decision by the Obama Administration considering the lack of religious exemptions is indicative of the dismissiveness of liberals to conscience concerns of religious believers. Believe what you want, just don’t act on it is the new religious tolerance. They had no idea about the fallout that this would entail because they just can’t imagine anybody actually being upset about this. No doubt the author of this piece has no idea how offensive it is.