Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Thursday, August 04, 2011

Either Sr. Carol Keehan Is Lying. . . .

(which is what I think) or she is showing how ignorant she really is about the facts of contraception.

I am refering to Sr. Carol's statement on the announcement Monday about forcing insurance to cover contraceptives. In it she said "We appreciate that the Administration does not intend to include abortifacient drugs as covered contraception." (emphasis mine)

Does she NOT know the facts, that the Pill, IUDs & the morning after pill known as Ella do cause abortions? She must know at least the basic facts by now as this discussion about the abortafacient effects of many forms of contraception has been discussed long & loud. & she can't be that stupid that she hasn't noticed. Theoretically, anyone who gets to her type of position shouldn't be stupid, so she must know. & she thus must clearly be lying when she claims that the drugs mentioned aren't abortafacients, especially Ella.

Yesterday I talked about Catholic institutions selling their soul to the devil in working to get ObamaCare passed. Sr. Carol is a prime example of someone who not only did so, but did so with eyes wide open & knew exactly what she was doing was going pass a law that would promote abortion. She not only sold her soul, IMHO she has become Satan's head cheerleader. She lied then, so it should be no surprize that she is lying now.

& that fact makes this part of her statement all the more egregious: "However, CHA is very concerned about the inadequacy of the conscience protections with respect to the coverage of contraception. As it stands, the language is not broad enough to protect our Catholic health providers. Catholic hospitals are a significant part of this nation’s health care, especially in the care of the most vulnerable. It is critical that we be allowed to serve our nation without compromising our conscience."

Where do I start? Didn't she claim that there were all these protections in ObamaCare already, esp with Obama's executive order to back it up? Wasn't that language broad enough then? Why isn't it now?

As for the line about "compromising our conscience", isn't it way too late to worry about that? She is way past that stage. She proved that last year with her support of ObamaCare. & she showed how dead her conscience was last Winter when she sided with St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix & contradicted not only what Bishop Olmsted said, but the Doctrinal Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) as well.

Bluntly, I think that paragraph was only put in as a cover to make people think like she was concerned about protecting the rights of Catholics.

Why isn't she decrying the inclusion of contraceptives in the 1st place? She claims to be Catholic, so she should know what the Church's teaching on contraception is.

Another part of the statement raises a question I have raised before, why are only these things exempt from a copay. She said "We are delighted that health insurance coverage must include critical screening services without any cost-sharing. What to some may seem like small amounts as co-pays for mammograms, pap smears, etc., has proven to be an effective barrier to care for women who have low incomes.

Our hope is that eliminating this barrier will result in earlier diagnosis at a treatable stage of many diseases such as cancer and diabetes."(emphasis mine)

OK, fine, but if that is the goal, shouldn't the same exemptions from a copay be extended to other proceedures to protect men from the same diseases? Don't these same barriers exist for low income men? They do. But there is 1 other fact she fails to point out, to no copay applies to everyone who is insured. There is no means test applied to the insured to determine who does or doesn't have a copay. Everyone, regardless of income, is exempt from the copay. What she is doing here is trying to provide Obama with cover for what she clearly knows is a move that has little to nothing to do with protecting women's health & everything with giving payback to the abortion industry for its support of Obama.

Sr. Carol has once again betrayed the very Catholic Church she claims to be representing as head of the Catholic Health Association. She should step down as head of the Catholic Health Association immediately. & if not, then the governing board of the CHA should forece her out, & the CHA should disavow her actionsas well. If not, then it is time for the CHA to be told it can no longer claim to a Catholic Group. I am not sure which Bishop has that authority to do so, but whoever it is must speak up now. This scandal has gone on way too long.
(Note: I am not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen, I am way too realistic. It may take some even more scandalous action on her part that will result in word coming from the Vatican that something has to be done.)

PS: I have no idea what she is talking about in the last line of her statement. She said "Our comments will address our concerns about the mechanism of action of certain FDA-approved contraceptive drugs." What comments? To who? "Mechanism of action"???? Is that her way of saying they cause abortion without actually admitting it???? If so, then it is just more proof that she is intentionally lying about abortifacient drugs not being included.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery