Lucky Us: Another Fortnight for Freedom | National Catholic Reporter

Lucky Us: Another Fortnight for Freedom | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Unless the bishops as a group disband his committee, he has every right to do something with it.  Of course, the Freedom to Bear Witness is something we always have - but what about that freedom if an employee wants contraception and does not believe it to be immoral (it is not by the way, unless it is eugenic).  Regardless, the mandate has been settled for the most part - largely by Catholic Health and Catholic Charities simply ignoring the bishops and negotiating with the Administration.  I suspect that this Fortnight is simply a way to keep the other players in line - yet another way to go after the Sisters.  Sorry, the Sisters are right.



Same sex marriage laws are done, its a civil right in more and more states and will be nationalized soon.  The sooner we take it off the table and realize that if we treat non-canonical civil hetero marriages and non-canonical gay marriages differently as employers, even though such marriages are not recognized as sacramental - then the reason is not moral, its simple bigotry.  Actually, its nasty bigotry from a church where the clergy is largely gay and should be celebrating stable unions as an antidote to promiscuity.



On mandatory abortion funding as part of the ACA, it is time to actually do something and tell Republican members who are anti-abortion that they need to allow a corrects bill to go through so that this item might be addressed too.  Its time for the faux grass roots of the Tea Party to stop wagging the dog.  I still have no sympathy for the Church on this issue, because it lost my support and that of others for the way they lied about the ACA itself - the abortion funding problem was not in the Act but the issue was ambiguous. Abortion funding, by the way, is entirely covered in most non-governmental employer provided insurance (as is contraception).  The Church promised that existing coverage rules would stay in force.  The problem is that some of this employer provided coverage is being replaced by coverage under the exchanges, which is more governmental and more likely to be subject to that Hatch Amendments - or not.



As for the RFRA, the question is always whose?  I would say employee rights are as or more important and any employer objections must deal with those first, as is the case under the ACA.