Slip slidin’ away – the ‘un’ definition of marriage.

Last week many in the country and around the world celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the unconstitutionality of the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’. The court’s overturning of this legislation opened the door for legalized same sex marriage around the country. Much celebration ensued as a result of this decision as no more could a ‘spouse’ be defined as a part of a heterosexual couple.

blueisblueWhat many (most?!) are failing to overlook is that the removal of the definition of marriage between a man and a woman means that there is *no* definition of marriage. A change in definition is a removal of the original definition which, in turn, means that the definition is not static but is fluid. As such, it is not enough for those who believe in ‘marriage equality’ to decide that ‘equality’ *only* applies to them. Once the door of ‘discrimination’ is opened it cannot be arbitrarily closed.

The courts have ruled that it is a form of discrimination to refuse to allow same sex marriages and allowing the door to open on states to pursue this option again. So what does that mean for marriage? If same sex marriage is permitted and it is discrimination to refuse ‘equality’ to those who wish to marry someone of the same sex – then what happens when polygamists go to court to argue that they are being discriminated against? If we have decided that marriage no longer means a relationship between a man and a woman, then – technically – any form of ‘marriage’ must now be accepted or face the risk of being discriminatory.

Think it sounds far-fetched? Not so much…

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

And what happens when parents and children decide to marry each other? What about 6 women and men deciding to ‘marry’ one another? Would it be okay to discriminate against those who believe that they should have the right to marry in the previous examples?

‘Oh, that would never happen.’ Would most discussing the idea of same sex marriage 50 years ago have believed that we would be redefining marriage at this point in time?

‘Womanhood is not a defect’

There has been much in the news recently regarding a ‘war on women’. Of course, political parties have taken the opportunity to use this meme in there war against one another. The media, of course, has been complicit in its participation. There are, however, other societal behaviors that have been taking place that have indicated that there is, in truth, a ‘war on women’ being waged.

This war is starting in the earliest stages of a girl’s life – in the women. Lila Rose has recently uncovered a widespread gendercide taking place. Is this in India or China you ask? Nope. Its right here in the United States of America. If you don’t believe its real or its a significant issue in this country, think again.

As recently as last week, Congress attempted to make it illegal to abort a baby as a result of its gender through the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act. Sadly, the act was narrowly defeated within the House of Representatives. Even more sadly, President Obama indicated that had it passed, he would have vetoed the bill indicating that

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.

In other words, “If you want to kill your baby because its a girl, its none of my business and go right ahead. However, remember that if you want to have sex and use contraception – that is my business and I expect others who have a moral objection to such drugs and procedures to pay for it.” Moral relativism goes marching on. We are now no different than China and India in this regard and are on an equivalent moral plane where sex selective abortions are concerned, and we have a highly hypocritical government where the level of their willingness to intrude is concerned.

Today, I stumbled upon this wonderful piece that discusses the idea that the government has diminished womanhood to a defect.

More offensive, however, is the suggestion that women are somehow inherently defective and cannot succeed unless their feminine nature is “corrected” with contraception. This commercial claims that two young girls with lofty career aspirations cannot reach their goals with their fertility intact. It presumes that they will choose to be sexually active at a time when becoming pregnant would derail their professional lives. It paints motherhood as an inferior vocation. And just like President Obama’s other fictional woman, “Julia”, this commercial implies that women must be dependent on the federal government in order to control their fertility.

Please take a moment to read the entire piece. Its a great read and outlines the truth in the idea that the criticisms toward the Catholic Church have it backwards. Not only do they have it backwards, but the government is deliberately misrepresenting the efforts of the Church in fighting for religious freedom. My Church recognizes me as an equal to my husband. It recognizes the beauty of the gift I have been given as a women in my ability to produce life. My government, however, has decided the only way I can succeed in life is if that gift is suppressed – and it can only be successfully suppressed through the use of artificial contraception. Which entity truly respects me as a woman?

Update: Found this while perusing my Twitter feed today after posting this piece – NBC’s Nancy Snyderman indicated that aborting babies where tests indicate a genetic abnormality is ‘pro-science’. Raises a question… if a woman or man is infertile as a result of genetic abnormalities, should they then peruse in-vitro fertilization or would that be ‘anti-sciense’? Would that be ‘pro-science’ in the eyes of Snyderman if it meant that the parents might pass along the genetic abnormality to their children? At least Donny Deutsche had the sanity to question the ethics and where one would draw the line. Of course, Snyderman brushed off that question entirely.

Who is being bullied and who are the bullies?

This past fall we had dealt with a situation in which our young son was being bullied at school. It had been taking place for almost two months without our knowing. What we did know, however, is that his sweet and cheerful disposition had changed and he had become prone to sudden outbursts of physical and emotional rage. His behavior had become so extreme that we contemplated seeking professional help from a counsellor to try and learn why this might be happening. It was torturous to see him so unhappy and feel helpless in trying to understand why. He’s never been one for sharing his feelings in discussion, so it was very difficult to try and determine the root cause of this change in behavior.

In late October, our prayers of understanding why this was happening had been answered. We went to our scheduled parent-teacher conference and learned that on that morning a boy had written an unkind note about our son and had showed it to him in order to have him feel badly. We spoke with our son about this note and the floodgates opened. We discovered that this had been just one in a series of incidents that had been taking place almost daily. The cumulation of this behavior by this boy had caused our son to feel terrible about himself. We, with our son’s teacher, told our son that this behavior would change and that he could freely and openly tell us about these incidents going forward. While we didn’t realize it at the time, we noticed within that very week that our son’s cheery disposition was starting to return and his moments of rage had begun to diminish.

I’ve been more alert to bullying and its impact since this happened. I admit that I had read of teen suicides as a result of bullying in the past and had wondered ‘How could the parents not know what was happening?’, and – after having our son experience someone telling him repeatedly that he was worthless for two months and not know though knowing something was happening – I can say that I now understand how I understand how they could not have known.

Watching the news the past few weeks, I have seen examples of bullying take place in very public ways and it has been appalling to watch. A bully is defined as ‘A person who uses strength or power to intimidate those who are weaker.’ and the act of bullying is ‘Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.’

The most prominent example of this blatant bullying took place when prominent anti-bullying advocate, Dan Savage, founder of ‘It Get’s Better‘ (widely endorsed by the Obama administration) took the opportunity to use his pulpit at a teen journalism conference to speak horribly about the Bible and Christians who believe in the validity of sacred scripture. During a lengthy anti-Bible rant, Savage noted that

We can learn to ignore the bulls-t in the Bible about gay people.

He went on to refer to those who, offended by his behavior, got up and left by calling them names like ‘pansy-asses’. It is astounding to me that a young gay man who has been the subject of much name calling and criticism of his choices in life – so much so that he would start a foundation to speak out against it – would be so hypocritical to exercise the same behavior he abhors to a group of teens who thought they were coming to hear about journalism. Dan Savage has become the bully (we become what we hate?).

Sadly, this behavior is being exercised from the top down by our own President here in the US as ‘Obama for America’ had the audacity to publicize the names of donors to the Romney campaign whom they deemed to be ‘questionable’. The point here isn’t to discuss the merits of whether or not Romney has ‘questionable’ donors, or even to point out the hypocrisy of President Obama doing so when his own list of donors contains their own questionable characters (John Corzine?, Jeffrey Katzenberg? George Kaiser?), but rather to illuminate the poor example it sets for our children when the highest office in the land to abuse its position of power and threaten those who speak out (or donate) against it. Isn’t this considered intimidation of those weaker than the office of the President – which would be essentially everyone in the US.

I’ve been doing my very best to stay away from being political on this blog… I really have! Reading this story yesterday, however, combined with the revealing of Savage as a bully prompted me to write this today. The story reveals how the publishing of questionable and inaccurate materials on the Obama for America website about Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of Melaleuca, Inc. has cost Mr. VanderSloot significant business deals. Other articles regarding the matter indicate that Mr. VanderSloot is considering libel lawsuits – and rightly so. The first line of the article states

Here’s what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent.

It is saddening that we would find ourselves with the individual occupying the highest office of the land speaking out against bullying, and then using the same tactics he criticizes in those who bully in an attempt to hold on to that office.

How can we teach our children the importance of respect for one another and treating those with whom you may disagree with dignity and respect if those who occupy prominent places in the media don’t do the same and exemplify that behavior? Its even worse when those who speak out against it turn around and do the very thing against which they speak.

Thankfully, there is always the opportunity to share with our children the idea that Jesus taught us loving others as He loves us.

God sends us the Saints we need at the time we need them.

I recently learned about the idea that God sends us the Saints we need at the time that we need them. Yesterday, I wrote about the idea of our willingness to say ‘yes’ to God’s call in both the bigger things and smaller things in life. Thankfully – for us – we have had a litany of Saints throughout history that have been willing to say ‘yes’ to some pretty ‘big’ calls.

For example, St. Maximilian Kolbe, a Catholic Priest, spent much of his life during the early part of the 20th century spreading the Gospel to far away places like Japan and India. During the Second World War he was imprisoned at the Nazi concentration camp, Auschwitz. While there, he ministered to those within the camp. In 1941, ten were selected by prison guards to suffer death as a result of the attempted escape of one of the prisoners. One of the men selected was a father with a wife and children. St. Maximilian offered himself in place of this young father and was executed. St. Maximilian displayed the ultimate act of charity by giving his life for another.

St. Joan of Arc is another – perhaps more well known and larger – example of someone sent to say ‘yes’ to God’s call in a very very big way. St. Joan of Arc was only seventeen when she was given a small army to help the rightful King of France, Charles, regain his throne against the English King.

Throughout history, we see time and time again when brave and courageous individuals are sent to stand up against powerful forces who sought to bring down individuals, nations, cultures and the Christian faith. When looking around at our world today, I often ponder who among us will become Saints. We have the recent beatification of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calculatta and Blessed Pope John Paul II who both made significant strides in working to make our world a better place in their efforts during their time here on earth. But, who today – right now? It dawned on me, the other day, that Cardinal Dolan just may be one of those who we will see canonized at some point down the road.

Cardinal Dolan, as head of the US Council of Catholic Bishops, is currently leading the charge to fight against the potential loss of religious liberty in the United States with the contraception/sterilization/abortifacient mandate as part of the Affordable Health Care Act. I stumbled across the article entitled, Cardinal Politics, at National Review Online written by Kathryn Jean Lopez. While she doesn’t make the case for Sainthood, she does point out the challenge at hand for Cardinal Dolan.

“Excuse me while I save the world,” my late friend Andrew Breitbart would say. I can’t quite hear the cardinal or the congressman putting it that way, but it is nonetheless what they’re doing by defending the religious liberty of all Americans. America has long been a beacon for those who thirst for freedom and seek to live in a society that does not punish obedience to conscience. It is becoming increasingly clear that the upcoming election is going to have something to do with whether or not we preserve our foundational freedoms, not only for future generations but for those of us here now. A bureaucracy in Washington is trying to figure out how to make viable a law that interferes with our most intimate life-and-death decisions.

If the overall mandate is upheld this week, its likely that the contraception/sterilization/abortifacient mandate and its violation of the First Amendment will see the light of day in court. If so, history will determine whether or not Cardinal Dolan will be a Saint of our time.

An update on Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

Pastor Nadarkhani had been on my heart recently and I did a Google search to see if I could identify any updated information regarding his status. From what I can tell, he is still alive and being kept in captivity.

In my search, I came across a great piece on Patheos;

The idea that the fate of Youcef Nadarkhani will be a marker of Iran’s future is rarely expressed in Christian writings on his situation, but I believe it is a powerful reality. Nations that have killed their citizens unrepentantly over matters of faith have invariably courted chaos, terror, and internal weakness. This is historically true however we choose to account for it. It would take a kind of open-ended courage for Iranian decision-makers to let Nadarkhani live, on his terms, but any other decision will invite calamity for their people and themselves.

Please continue to keep Pastor Nadarkhani in your prayers.

The list of promises broken is getting longer…

So far we have found out that all of the ‘promises’ made by President Obama to mindful of conscience protection have been nothing more than empty promises. Time and time again we have been lied to, such as here, and here, and here, and here (or here if you believe that Doctors are taking fewer private insurance patients), and also here. And now, this.

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.  As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

At what point does the American public acknowledge that they’ve been lied to – repeatedly.

RIP Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart, whether you agreed with him or not – or liked him or not, was a force with which to be reckoned. His willingness to say it like it was and call it like he saw it was had been made even more enjoyable by his sense of humor and general cheerfulness. As a fan of the Dennis Miller Radio show (too funny – I like to listen while working at my desk), Andrew was always my favorite guest host.

In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Today, I feel sad. I keep hoping that at some point I will find out that this is a hoax.

Let's just get this out of the way, shall we?

It seemed as though now is as good a time as any to address the elephant in the living room. Like anyone who has a sense of what’s happening in this country – but particularly Catholics, I’ve been following the HHS contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drugs mandate situation very closely. Like most, I’ve been appalled – but not surprised – at the media mischaracterization of the objection of not only each and every Catholic Bishop in the United States (yes, we’re up to 100% now!) but also roughly 2500 other Christian and Jewish leaders too. It seemed a good time as any to debunk the media misrepresentation and general misunderstanding of the general public as it relates to this issue.

First, to clarify – the HHS mandate will require that each and every health insurance plan offered by each and every insurance company provide coverage for contraception (this includes class one carcinogen birth control pills and IUDs), sterilization (this includes tubal litigation and vasectomies), and abortion inducing drugs (this includes drugs such as RU-486 - which is made by the Roussel Uclaf who is in turn owned by Hoescht AG, formerly known as IG Farben who made Zyklon B and conducted medical experiments for the Nazis – and Ella). Because each and every plan is required to cover these products and services – at *no* cost to the person being insured – each and every resident in the United States will be required to pay for these services regardless of whether or not they a) need them b) use them or c) find them morally objectionable. This isn’t just about religious entities, this applies to everyone residing in the United States. The overall health insurance mandate requires that every individual carry health insurance or pay a fine, so outside of objecting to the mandate by paying the fine and not being covered – there is no ‘choice’ for those individuals, religious entities or even companies who find these products morally objectionable. The only choice that exists is a) pay for coverage and put your conscience aside or b) pay a fine and not be covered (which leaves us pretty much where we are today with people losing their homes and lives being bankrupted by skyrocketing health care costs).

Let’s set aside, for the time being, the argument as to whether or not one believes that the Church and others should or shouldn’t believe in the moral objections of contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drugs because the issue at hand isn’t one’s beliefs, but rather the idea of whether or not the government has the right to do the following:

  1. mandate that an individual or business entity purchase a particular product in the private marketplace using their private purchasing power
  2. mandate that an individual or business entity purchase a particular product in the private marketplace using their private purchasing power to which they have a moral objection based on religious beliefs

The Department of Health and Human Services has states that the reason for this mandate is that it is ‘less expensive to prevent an illness than to treat it.’ The first glaring issue with this particular mandate is that the Department of Health and Human Services is classifying pregnancy as an ‘illness’. I’m pretty sure that I speak for every mother out there when I say that – even at the moments I have been most frustrated with my children – I have NEVER thought of my children as diseases to be cured. Moving beyond that glaringly obnoxious categorization as declared by the HHS, there are a number of inconsistencies with this argument.

The first inconsistency is that insurers have come out since the contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drug mandate (‘You keep using that lengthy term – why?’ – because this isn’t just a contraception issue as the media would want you to believe) and indicated that they are unable to provide contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drugs at no co-pay or cost to clients without recouping the cost elsewhere. Contrary to the belief of the Dept of HHS, insurers do not a) have a money tree in the backyard upon which they can pick continually regenerating supplies of cash to pay for services b) have a deal with providers of the aforementioned services and drugs to receive them for free (hence, doctors and drug companies are also lacking the money tree in the backyard) and c) are also not able to pay for these services and drugs by way of Unicorn droppings. Here’s a big lesson in life – ‘Nothing in life is free, ‘free’ only means that someone else is paying for it.’ With that in mind, we know that the insurers will cover the costs the only way that they know how – by rolling the costs into the premiums charged to their customers. Who are those customers? Ultimately, you and I (‘But wait – my company pays my insurance – not me.’ – True, but the insurance they pay is part of your compensation package and is related to the company employing you. Indirectly, its the company using money allocated to ‘you’.). As such, the so-called ‘accommodation’ by the White House is really an indication of how stupid they think the general public is by trying to tell them – ‘No, you won’t be paying but the insurance companies will.’ making the accommodation an insult to the intelligence of the voting population.

The second inconsistency is that by doing this the insurance companies save money. The average cost of ‘treating’ a pregnancy is $7500. The average annual cost of the birth control pill is $600. If a woman is on the pill for the majority of her child-bearing years (18-40), it would cost the insurance company roughly $13200 for the cost of her contraception. And this is a cost savings how?

A third and most glaring inconsistency is in what the Department of Health and Human Services doesn’t tell you about the fact that the birth control pill with its doses of synthetic hormones is considered a class one carcinogen. This means that it presents a risk in increased instances of certain types of cancers.

modifies slightly the risk of cancer, increasing it in some sites (cervix, breast, liver), decreasing it in others (endometrium, ovary).

Yes… it does decrease some cancers, but did the HHS factor in the cost of treating cervix, breast and liver cancer in their overall cost savings to the insurers because I’m willing to bet that chemotherapy, radiation and extended hospital stays are not inexpensive as are mammograms etc…

Finally, there is an even more obvious and glaring inconsistency in the HHS mandate. We are told that it is a ‘cost saving’ measure. Given that there were roughly 4.1 million babies born in the US last year and the average cost of ‘treating’ that pregnancy was $7500 we can ascertain that the cost of delivering those babies totaled $30.8 billion. Its hard to find statistics on the money spent on birth control pills alone in the United States, but a NYTimes article referring to the sale of Bayer’s ‘Yaz’ pill noted that at $616m a year in sales it represented 18% of the marketplace of the pill which puts the total market at roughly $1.2 billion. Of course, that number doesn’t include the cost of sterilizations and abortion inducing drugs. But, we can determine the that government wants to ‘save’ insurers roughly $26b per year (if we assume that the cost of all services and products to be provided for ‘free’ total $4b per year). Is it a savings? Yes. Will it be ‘free’? No. But if its all about cost savings then why didn’t the HHS mention the annual costs to insurers associated with obesity? According to the CDC, in 2008 we spent roughly $147b per year on obesity and obesity related illnesses here in the US. Our obesity rates are on the rise so we can assume that this amount is higher today and we are less than four years later.

If the HHS was truly concerned about ‘saving’ money for the insurers, wouldn’t they want to help target the health care costs of obesity? $26b may be a lot of money saved by not having to deliver those pesky little ‘diseases’, but if we could lower the obesity rate we could save up to $147b. $147b is larger than $26b right? So why not implement mandates that would target obesity?

Consider this idea… what if when you went grocery shopping, you were required to purchase – at a minimum – foods that would provide your family with a perfectly balanced meal plan for the week. You could purchase products you wished to have, but you would need to purchase the ‘healthy’ items first. We would all carry a card that would track our purchases that would need to be presented at the check out with each purchase and it would have a record of our purchases. If you’d purchased the healthy quota for the week, then you could purchase the yummy stuff – if not, you’d need to buy the remainder of the healthy stuff before you could purchase the Coca-Cola, the chips, the chocolate bars etc… If you didn’t like the food you were required to buy, that’s okay – you wouldn’t have to eat it. You could, if you wanted, leave it in a large bin outside the store that would pick up food and take it to the homeless. If you didn’t want to purchase these items, you could pay a fine and then be free to purchase the items you wished to purchase. Wouldn’t this help combat obesity?

‘Wait a minute. You can’t tell people what they have to buy!’ – you exclaim. Why not? That’s exactly what the HHS contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drugs mandate says. It says that anyone – because of the mere fact that they are living breathing human beings residing in the United States – must carry health insurance with a minimum of coverage as outlined by the HHS. Keep in mind that the overall insurance mandate exists because the government knows that by legislating that insurance companies are no longer able to restrict based on pre-existing conditions and people will not pay for the insurance until they get sick – it forces them to buy in and cover the costs. Hence, they are requiring everyone to purchase a pre-defined government product from a private enterprise. Isn’t this ultimately the same as the grocery store example? The products you would purchase from the grocery store would be pre-defined by the government and purchased from a private enterprise. Seem far-fetched? Not really. Health insurance is now mandated by the government and we need food to survive, so the grocery store example is actually *less* invasive because they don’t mandate that you go to the grocery store, they just say ‘if you do… you will purchase this’ in an attempt to promote healthy eating in the United States and to save money.

Keep in mind that all of this ruckus over the contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drugs issue could have been avoided if the HHS had simply offered two basic plans: one with the objectionable services and one without. Why didn’t they do that? Simple, the premiums would be higher for the one *with* the objectionable services (remember, insurers need to recoup the cost somewhere and the Unicorn poop just wouldn’t cover it) and people would figure out that they were, in fact, paying for these services after all. Insurers and the HHS need everyone to pay premiums in order to offset the increased cost of providing services for ‘free’.

I recently saw a quote that said:

If what happens in your bedroom is none of my business, then please don’t make me pay for your supplies or consequences.

Thought that quote provided a little levity and honesty in an otherwise heavy discussion.

In reading several pieces about the HHS contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drugs mandate, I came across a piece by Marc John Paul at ‘Bad Catholic’ in his ‘Open letter to Barack Obama Concerning Recent Tyranny‘. Marc John Paul is an 18 year old Catholic man who is wise beyond his years. He raises several wonderful points regarding the exercise of religious freedom and is extremely articulate. Perhaps one of the most significant points he makes is that this mandate is extremely insulting to women:

I know our world is idiotic and sexist to the point of the embarrassing belief that women cannot prevent pregnancy without pills, but as it turns out, they can. In fact, if you’re a woman reading this, chances are you’re preventing pregnancy right now. (If not, rethink your sex life.) Thus a health-care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not damn women to pregnancy — oh, the horror — any more than not providing diet-pills would damn them to obesity.

Let’s clarify one point he makes above to counter the misleading media representation – the objection to the mandate is NOT the Catholic Church or anyone of the 2500 religious leaders of the US trying to restrict access to birth control for anyone. To date, over 90% of women have reported that they have had access to birth control when trying to prevent a pregnancy. This isn’t about access to birth control and an attempt to restrict it in any way – its about individuals saying ‘That’s fine if you want to use it, but please don’t make me pay for it.’ Right now roughly 90% of insurance plans cover it, but the fact is that with this mandate no one will have a choice any longer as to whether they choose to cover it or not.

Finally, as this mandate pertains to religious freedom – the HHS contraception/sterilization/abortion inducing drug mandate clearly flies in the face of the US Constitution. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

If the government will not permit me to ‘opt out’ of paying for drugs and services against which my religion has a clearly defined moral objection – how is government *not* ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof’? Quakers are not required to serve in the military as it violates their religious beliefs. The Amish are entirely exempt from carrying any health insurance and even Muslims may also find themselves exempt from the overall insurance mandate – both based on religious beliefs. The same individuals, however, are not will to recognize my religious beliefs and that of millions across the country. The Fourteenth Amendment provides ‘equal protection under the law’. If we are willing to allow for the exemptions based on some religious beliefs, but not others – aren’t we then allowing our government to violate the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing for religious discrimination?

I will continue to pray that those of us who believe that these products and services are morally objectionable will be given the choice to not have to pay for them as part of our health insurance. If allowed to stand, it sets a precedent in allowing for the government to mandate any product be required to be purchased by individuals from private entities. I hear the sales of Chevy Volts have been dwindling, perhaps we could mandate that every family making over $170k purchase one of those next!

Today’s writing wasn’t exactly ‘Lent’ related… but I did want to get it out there as it pertains to religious liberty in the US and it does help open the door as to further writing as to why I believe in Natural Family Planning as a viable family planning method.

God Bless.