False teacher Chuck Currie* offers us a glimpse into how the President manipulates useful idiots into advancing his agenda in President Obama Will Announce Contraception Accommodation That Expands Coverage.
President Obama will speak at 9:15 am to announce an accommodation that expands contraception access for women and meets the needs of religious employers with objections to offering coverage. I’ve been briefed by senior White House officials and the plan is sound.
It has been obvious that much of what Chuck writes is simply a copy/paste job from Obama talking points, but I’m surprised he admitted it. He appeared to do that with the Giffords shooting, ghoulishly and falsely blaming Sarah Palin before the bodies were cold, and he does it regularly on whatever the latest topic is. I’m surprise he outed himself, though.
The parallels to the Nazis are so creepy: Fake Christians being mouthpieces for the culture-of-death government.
Religious employers will not be required to offer insurance plans that cover contraception. But those insurance companies will be required to provide free contraception to women.
A fact they never mention: This “contraception” includes abortifacients that kill human beings after fertilization.
Also not mentioned: Those sentences contradict each other and thus mean nothing. It is still a requirement of making employers pay the costs. Only in the fantasy world of Liberal economics is there such a thing as “free” health care. Let’s see: The insurance companies “have” to give “free” health care in the form of contraception, but they would never, ever make up the costs anywhere else, would they? Because that would mean the employers were still paying.
Fact: Either Chuck & Co. are failures at economics (that is what studies show) and/or they think you are an idiot. It really shows how much contempt they have for people who value life and freedom of religion, when all they did was repackage the same mandate into allegedly more flexible language.
Note how they can — and probably will — do the same thing with abortion funding (“You don’t have to pay for it, your insurer just has to give it for free. And they will gladly do so because it is cheaper than childbirth.”)
The religious angle is part of it, but I think what they are really trying to do is conflate contraception (very popular) with abortion (increasingly unpopular). They know they are losing the stand-alone battle on abortion, as young people (i.e., Roe v Wade survivors) are becoming more pro-life. But those same people want there to be access to birth control.
By merging the issues they think they have a better shot at winning the abortion battle. And they may be right. Like I say, Satan is evil but not stupid. The end game is taxpayer-funded abortions, because they truly believe that one of our problems is that people are killing enough innocent but unwanted human beings.
Insurance companies would prefer to offer free contraception than to cover the costs of an unwanted pregnancy or diseases that contraception can help prevent.
This is creative thinking by President Obama and his staff.
Really? Then why don’t those businesses do that already? Why does the government have to force them to do it?
Creative? Evil? Whatever. There is no right to health care. A right to health care would mean that someone else has a moral obligation to provide it.
And people can buy all the contraceptives they like. No one is proposing that they be illegal. The cries about “access” are simply lies.
And the disease reduction bit is nonsense. Graph the growth and Federal funding of Planned Parenthood and the exponential increase in STDs and don’t be surprised at the correlation. Condoms prevent some diseases, but give a false sense of security on others. And most other contraceptives increase the spread of disease because they perpetuate the sex-without-consequences fantasy.
Sister Carol Keehan, President of the US Catholic Health Association, and Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards support the compromise.
The CEO of the largest baby killer in the country supports it?! That’s all I need to know. Read all about the founder of Planned Parenthood here, and how her dream of eliminating blacks and other “unfit” people is being fulfilled by people like Chuck and Cecile.
Many Christian denominations – the United Church of Christ included – strongly support contraception and have applauded the president’s efforts to expand coverage.
Many apostate denominations, that is. You know, the ones that think they don’t need religious freedoms because their views are indistinguishable from those of the world.
Any opposition to this new proposal will be partisan politics, pure and simple.
Wow, what an amazing preemptive rhetorical move! Now why doesn’t it ever occur to us to just start debates by saying that. We’d win every time, right?
Finally, note the hypocrisy in all this. Why aren’t the ACLU et al blasting religious people like Currie and Obama for forcing their religious views on others?
More on this at Jill Stanek’s blog
* Some views of the “reverend” Chuck Currie and nearly all other theological liberals:
- Jesus is not God (so he denies the Trinity).
- Jesus is not the only way to salvation.
- Jesus is pro-abortion, including partial-birth abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion.
- The original writings of the Bible were not inspired by God, but you should believe. that the Holy Spirit told him and the other Liberals in the UCC that God has changed his stance on marriage, parenting and homosexual behavior (now that’s blasphemy!). But it is still OK to quote any verses out of context if they seem to support your case for expanded government.
- Asking “Caesar” to take by threat of force from neighbor A to “give” to neighbor B counts as charity on your part and really pleases Jesus.
- It is acceptable to take 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades.
- The book of John doesn’t belong in the Bible. Actually, most of the Bible doesn’t belong in the Bible.
- The Gospel of Thomas does belong in the Bible.
- It is more exciting to do sermons on Charles Darwin more than Jesus.
- It is acceptable to lie and libel people on blogs as long as you think you won’t get caught.
- It is acceptable to try to “out” commenters on public blogs as “haters” to their employers when they point out how bad your arguments are.
- Christians have as much to learn from other religions as they do from Christianity.
- and so much more!
But he’s totally a Christian, because he’s a “reverend!” And you know that because — unlike nearly every other reverend I see blogging — it is in his blog title and everything he writes. It is almost as if he thinks you wouldn’t “know” he’s a reverend if he didn’t keep reminding you . . .
14 thoughts on “Case study: How the administration uses false teachers to manipulate “religious” people”
If Currie is a Christian then everyone in the world is a Christian – that’s how fast and loose he plays with the word.
I have a big question about this contraception coverage – Isn’t it a bit biased towards women? Why should guys be allowed to have free condoms?
Here’s Dr. Mohler’s input on the “compromise” that isn’t a compromise:
The point of an exemption is simply to enable an employer to avoid acting contrary to his or her religious beliefs, not to retain control of employees’ health plans, limit employees’ choices to those religiously approved by the employer, and avoid paying any money to anybody that might someday be used by somebody to provide services to employees not to the employers’ liking.
Forcing people to buy things is unconstutional. Forcing people to pay and calling it “free” is dishonest.
Those are garden-variety political gripes against the health law; you are welcome to think and voice them. Your gripes, though, fall short of asserting or showing that employers need an exemption so they won’t be forced to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
Calling reasons “garden variety” and “gripes” proves absolutely nothing. Can you see how I could make the same claim about your views? That should be tip-off that you are using fallacious reasoning.
Forcing employers to buy any insurance is unconstitutional. Forcing them to pay for insurance that provides “free” contraception or abortions that violate their religious beliefs only makes sense to people who are lying and/or don’t understand economic principles that I can get 7th graders to follow in less than 30 min.
Do you see any difference–morally–in these? 1. Using contraception. 2. Providing contraception to your employee. 3. Providing your employee with a health plan that includes a provision affording the employee the option of obtaining contraception. 4. Refraining from providing your employee with such a plan and, instead, paying an assessment of $2,000 to the government. The government may, of course, support insurance exchanges that help make health plans (containing provisions you don’t like) available to your employee. 5. Providing your employee with a health plan that does not include a provision for contraception. The government may, of course, call on others, e.g., insurers, to make contraception available to your employee.
Note that the purpose of the exemption is simply to get you off the hook, i.e., to avoid forcing you to take any action contrary to your personal religious beliefs. The purpose is not to somehow enable you to control or influence whether your employee obtains contraception. Indeed, the law aims, in part, to assure that you do not do that.
Funneling employer money through a third party doesn’t change what they are paying for. It is just more dishonesty and immorality on the part of the administration and the fake Christians who are willing tools.
Worse yet is there “think of all the premiums you’ll save on children who are aborted instead of being raised to adulthood.” That’s moronic pro-abortion reasoning at its most extreme. Using that logic, insurance companies would for your children to be killed because it would save money on premiums.
Oh, I see. You’re just against the law altogether. That was never the point of an exemption for employers though, so I suppose you were never to be satisfied in any event.
Employees can always purchase contraception. Why should insurance companies EVER pay for it. Contraception is not health care, nor is it preventative health care, and it is always elective. If a person does not want children, all they have to do is abstain from sexual relations – and that’s FREE!
Again I have to ask, isn’t contraception coverage just for women discriminatory? Why can’t a man have free condoms?
That’s not really true. I dated a girl once that absolutely needed contraceptives to regulate her hormones so that she would have her monthly cycle. Sometimes there is a legitimate medical purpose for taking them.
Then call it hormone therapy and not “contraception.” I understand those pills can be used for other things, but THAT isn’t what is under discussion. What is under discussion is CONTRACEPTION. Everything else is a red herring.
I’ll accept that. I think there should be a provision that makes that distinction clear.
I’m in total agreement with the Right on this issue. This is as brazen a violation of religious liberty as I have ever seen. People need to remove their ideological blinders.
I love this:
” I’ve been briefed by senior White House officials and the plan is sound.”
As if Obama ever did anything in Chuck’s eyes that wasn’t sound.