Speak with an Agent1-800-920-4994

A HealthNetwork Partner

Catholic Bishops Call Biden A Liar On ObamaCare

ObamaCare: The leaders of the vice president’s church are calling him out for denying the Affordable Care Act’s threat to religious liberty and the institutions that provide needed social services.As we noted in our post-debate analysis, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) were not amused with Joe Biden’s other great debate lie — that ObamaCare doesn’t threaten religious liberty or the ability of churches, particularly the Catholic Church, to put their faith in action.

On Oct. 12, the USCCB denounced the VP’s deceptive comments, noting that the so-called HHS exemption is a farce that unconstitutionally defines what a religious institution is and what government will allow it to do.That exemption, the USCCB states, “does not extend to ‘Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital’ (as Biden claimed), or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.”

In other words, Joe Biden, a Catholic himself, lied.As Paul Ryan, also a Catholic, put it to Biden, the Obama administration was “infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.”If that weren’t so, Ryan said after one of Biden’s 82 interruptions, “Why would they keep suing you?”

This was a reference to a series of suits filed against the Obama administration by a wide variety of high-profile Catholic organizations, including the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and the University of Notre Dame.As Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, recently said on “Fox News Sunday,” they object to what they consider the unprecedented attempt by the Obama administration to define what a church and religious institution is — the notion that you’re a church if the government, in Soviet fashion, says you’re a church.

“Embedded in the mandate is a radically new definition of what constitutes a religious community, what constitutes religious ministry,”

Cardinal Wuerl said.

“Brand new, never before applied at the federal level. That’s what we’re arguing about.”

This is a conflict with huge electoral implications. Catholic voters make up 26% of the U.S. population and 29% of U.S. voters. George W. Bush won 52% of the Catholic vote vs. John Kerry’s 47% in 2004.

Barack Obama won 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008, a significant seven-point shift that greatly helped his election win.The secular media either ignore the issue or say Catholic fears are unfounded. Well, last week, Laurel Broten, Ontario, Canada’s Minister of Education told reporters that under its new anti-bullying law, Bill 13, the Accepting Schools Act, Catholic schools would no longer be permitted to teach that abortion is wrong.

“We do not allow and we’re very clear with the passage of Bill 13 that Catholic teachings cannot be taught in our schools that violates human rights and which brings a lack of acceptance to participation in schools,”

she told the pro-life religious liberty website LifeSiteNews.

How long before that happens here, the USCCB wonders?

The USCCB long ago issued a letter saying they “will not comply” with the HHS mandate requiring contraceptive coverage by all religious institutions or face crippling fines. It is, in their view and ours, an assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

They recently conducted the “Fortnight For Freedom,” an exercise in religious freedom from the pulpit in which they urged Catholics to “vote their faith.”
The USCCB says Catholic Joe Biden hasn’t voted his faith and has lied about the consequences of ObamaCare’s implementation for religious liberty.If voting Catholics exercise what fellow Catholic Nancy Pelosi mockingly called “this conscience thing,” Obama-Biden are in deep electoral trouble.

Investor’s Business Daily

October 16, 2012
photo credit: bibendum84 via photopin cc


  1. Dave October 17, 2012

    Are you Catholics still going on about having to pay for contraceptives? My tax dollars are helping to pay for bombs that kill children in Iraq and Afghanistan! That’s against MY religion! If I have to pay for bombs then you can pay for condoms. People dying and starving all over the world and you’re worried about contraceptives (which prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies) infringing upon your religious freedom. I think you need some new priorities, you so-called religious people.

  2. Doug Indeap October 18, 2012

    Actually, it is the bishops who have it wrong. Their claims that the health law violates religious liberty are based on a “big lie”–a gross falsification constantly repeated and embellished to lend credibility. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the health care law does not force employers to act contrary to their consciences.

    Employers may comply with the law by choosing either of two options: (1) provide qualifying health insurance plans or (2) do not provide such plans and instead pay assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religions forbid payments of money to the government, the law does not compel them to act contrary to their beliefs.

    The second choice does not amount to “violating” the law and paying a “fine,” as some suppose. As the law “does not explicitly mandate an employer to offer employees acceptable health insurance” (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/EmployerPenalties.pdf), there is no such “mandate” to “violate.” Rather, the law affords employers two options, either of which is as lawful as the other.

    Nor are the assessments set so high that paying them would drive employers out of business, as some speculate. The law provides that if a “large employer” (i.e., one with at least 50 employees) chooses not to provide health insurance, it must pay assessments of $2,000 per year per employee after the first 30 employees. That is much less than an employer typically would pay for health insurance. Small employers would pay no assessments at all. Because of this potential saving and because the law affords individuals realistic opportunities to obtain insurance on their own, many employers are considering this option–for reasons entirely unrelated to religion. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html)

    In recently issued commentary on the various options of employers, the National Catholic Bioethics Center acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that the option of not providing health insurance and instead paying assessments is “morally sound.” While also considering this option “unfortunate” in that the insurance employees would find on their own would include coverage the Center deems objectionable, the Center concludes that the employers’ “moral connection” to that coverage would be “remote.” https://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=450&erid=194821

    Bottom line: Employers are not forced by the law to act contrary to their consciences. Rather, as recognized by even those who object to some aspects of the insurance the law makes available, the law affords employers with similar objections the morally sound option of not providing such insurance and paying assessments instead.

  3. Sheila November 1, 2012

    So, should the rest of us have the right to not pay into the welfare and food stamp system that supports those families that have so many children they can’t afford to feed them?

  4. Lisa November 1, 2012

    Life is a great priority.

  5. Anne November 10, 2012

    Doug – Possibly you thought no one would take the time to read the actual links you provided:
    “Dropping all coverage appears to be the most morally sound approach. However, beginning in January 2014,an employer with more than fifty full-time equivalent employees could incur a penalty of approximately $2,000 per employee per year beyond the first thirty full-time employees not offered a health plan, as well as incur the potential legal actions taken by employees and the federal government.” Hmmmm, sounds like they ARE set to drive employers out of the marketplace.

    And Sheila – How many large families are we supporting because people can’t afford to feed them? I believe the average per household child rate in the US is 2. And NO! We shouldn’t have to pay to support families. The government was never supposed to SUPPORT families and provide an income. That was supposed to be the people’s responsibility, i.e. charity and religious organizations.

    Sheesh! No wonder our country is in a mess!

Health Network Group
301 Clematis Street
Suite 3000
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
This website is privately owned and all information and advertisements are independent and are not associated with any state exchange or the federal marketplace. Additionally, this website is not associated with, sanctioned by or managed by the federal government, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid or the Department of Health and Human Services.