Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

Lies Uncovered – Abortions will be Paid for by Taxpayers

March 15, 2012

From Alan Sears, our Pittsburgh banquet speaker on May 24:

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, i.e., ObamaCare, was being debated in public and in Congress during 2010, Americans who supported life were told again and again that the legislation would not cover abortion. But like so many other aspects of Obama’s healthcare overhaul, what was promised and what was received turned out to be two different things – especially considering that many legislators read the bill only after they signed it into law.

Read more…

The Parable of the Kosher Deli

February 17, 2012

From the testimony of  Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Presented before the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government  Reform


For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it The Parable of the Kosher Deli.

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.

There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community — whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides — expresses its outrage at the new government mandate.        

And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork — not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths — because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.

They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle.

They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced — under threat of severe government sanction — to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you.”

It is, after all, the “other white meat.”

Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”  

Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following:

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.  

Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe — even if they believe in error — that pork is not good for you should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not — and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.

Does the fact that large majorities in society — even large majorities within the protesting religious community — reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power?      

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards.      

Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.      

Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.

Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli?

In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.

So, in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer them a new “accommodation.”    

You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer.  

But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and to offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept.    

And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself.      

But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things: 

First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers themselves are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending: The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government — right now — is whether the story of our own church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. 

Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity?   

We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be: Yes.

We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way. Thank you for your attention.

Read more here.

Six Things to Know About HHS Mandate

February 16, 2012

From Jennifer Roback Morse at the Ruth Institute, some important facts about the “contraceptive mandate.”  It’s much more than that, and it directly threatens our liberty.

Supreme Court to Hear Repeal Case of Obamacare

November 14, 2011

The Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over Obamacare. That means arguments could come in March, allowing plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.

Read more…

Obamacare Lawsuits Head to US Supreme Court

September 27, 2011

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional.

Read more…

Federal Judge Rules Obamacare Mandate Unconstitutional

September 13, 2011

The requirement in the national health-care overhaul law that individuals buy health insurance is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday in a question that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to settle.

Read more…

Important Pro-Life Votes Coming up (As early as Monday, May 23rd)

May 19, 2011


Important Pro-Life Votes Coming up (As early as Monday, May 23rd)
Your State Senator Needs to Hear From You

Please call your State Senator on Two Key Pro-life Votes:

1. Ask your State Senator to support the Mensch Amendment to Senate Bill 732. The Mensch Amendment is almost identical to HB 574 which passed the House by close to a 3:1 margin last week and would require abortion facilities to abide by the same standards as other ambulatory surgical facilities.

2. Ask your State Senator to vote for Senate Bill 3 — which would allow PA to opt out of abortion coverage in the insurance exchanges required under the federal health
care plan. This bill would make sure that none of YOUR state tax dollars help to fund abortions.

Use our Citizen Action Center!

Call your State Senator today! Yes on the Mensch Amendment to SB 732 and Yes on SB 3.

The Grand Jury investigation and report on the Philadelphia abortion clinic scandal exposed horrific wrongdoing and allegations of murder of women and babies under the guise of medical care. Even more, the Grand Jury report reveals that abortion business in Pennsylvania has for many years operated in a politically protected “bubble,” which has allowed them to perform more than 30,000 abortions a year while ignoring commonly practiced medical standards.

Unfortunately, lobbyists from the abortion industry, and its allies, including the ACLU, have been fiercely lobbying against the regulations that the Mensch amendment would require – regulations that every other ambulatory surgical center in Pennsylvania has had to meet for more than three decades.

The abortion lobbyists are using scare tactics in order to keep their special carve-out in the law. I t’s time for you and me to change that!

Call your state senator today. And help spread the word to get others to do the same!

Pennsylvania Family Council is a non-profit organization made possible through financial donations from our supporters. To donate to Pennsylvania Family Council, click here.

23 N. Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17101 ~ Phone: 717-545-0600 ~ Fax: 717-545-8107 ~

in Obamacare, Congress showed “Blatant disregard for the Constitution”

December 13, 2010

“No one should be forced to pay for an unconstitutional federal takeover of health care that will funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of abortionists and lead inevitably toward death panels for the elderly and infirm. Congress showed blatant disregard for the Constitution, and that’s the pivotal issue here,” said Alliance Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden, commenting on a federal judge’s decision Monday that found a key component of ObamaCare unconstitutional.

Longtime PFI Friend Wins Key Post in Congress

December 13, 2010

Pro-abortion bloggers are upset that Congressman Joe Pitts (R) (Lancaster/Berks/Chester) has been appointed to a key post that will allow him to advance a pro-life agenda in Congress, and to fight key abortion components in Obamacare. The New York Times has a story about it here. Or see link: Congressman Pitts was a key leader in helping create the Pennsylvania Family Institute during the time when he served in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. It’s great to see such a pro-life champion get such a key, influential post.

Top Ten Reasons to Repeal ObamaCare!

March 31, 2010

From our sister organization, the Louisiana Family Forum

1. The American people are opposed to it!
2. Voters Think They Personally Would Suffer, Not Gain, From Healthcare Reform:
3. It expands the scope of government:
4. It Destroys American jobs.
5. It allows for federal funding of abortion.
6. It raises taxes on Americans for 10 years and provide benefits for six.
7. It changes the Medicaid funding formula such that taxpayers in 28 states will pay more of additional Medicaid costs.
8. It undermines basic industries that employee millions of Americans.
9. It establishes 159 new bureaucracies.
10. Fidel Castro has praised Obamacare!