* … but were afraid to ask.

By Tom Quiner

The president seemed sincere:

“I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.”

This came in 2009 in his address to Catholics at Notre Dame University.

Notre Dame’s president slobbered all over the president in his introduction, that the president isn’t …

“someone who stops talking to those who disagree with him.”

The president soothed with his rhetoric:

“[We] can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”

We now know this was all a con.

He stopped talking to the Catholic Bishops and went ahead and imposed the Obama Mandate on them. Although the president seems to recognize the moral repugnance of abortion by stating that they should be rare, his Mandate is certain to increase the quantity of human life that is ended in the womb with his imposition of abortifacients as a critical component of his Mandate.

The Mainstream Media and the president are feeding up bucket loads of disinformation. This humble blog will try to clarify some of the arguments surrounding the Obama Mandate:

Obama: “Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.”

Quiner’s Diner: Only if they are not providing services to the broader community. To avoid running afoul of Obama’s new laws, churches must only hire and serve people of their own faith. If they are serving food to the poor, who are not of their faith persuasion, for example, they may jeopardize their exemption. Enforcement will be up to the whim of the Obama administration.

Obama: “The Obama Administration is committed to both respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services. And as we move forward, our strong partnerships with religious organizations will continue.”

Quiner’s Diner: This is almost laughable if it wasn’t so dishonest. As this blog has reported, the Obama Mandate cuts no slack to faith-based organizations. Comply or pay fines. If you refuse to pay fines, prepare for enforcement. To demonstrate this administration’s lack of respect for religious beliefs, they denied a government grant to a Catholic  organization providing assistance to women who were victims of human trafficking. Why would Obama do that? Because the Catholic organization wouldn’t compromise their values by providing “women’s reproductive health services” they deemed objectionable. Team Obama instead gave the grant to an inferior organization with “failing objective scores” according to the government’s own rating system. Obama’s radical ideology not only trumps religious freedom, it trumps the well-being of those in need of help.

Obama: “Contraception coverage reduces costs: While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, insurers and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost. The National Business Group on Health estimated that it would cost employers 15% to 17% more not to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of potentially unintended and unhealthy pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.”

Quiner’s Diner: The premise that contraception coverage reduces costs is debatable. Experts can be presented on the other side of the aisle. For example, the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reports:

“Numerous studies examining sexual behavior and STD transmission have demonstrated risk compensation behavior, i.e., a greater willingness to engage in potentially risky behavior when one believes risk has been reduced through technology. Increasing access to contraception gives teens a false sense of security, leading to earlier onset of sexual activity and more sexual partners, which counteracts any reduction in unintended pregnancies.”

They site another study:

“Researchers in Spain examined patterns of contraceptive use and abortions in Spain over a ten year period from 1997-2007. Their findings, published in the journal Contraception in January 2011, were that a 63 percent increase in the use of contraceptives was accompanied by a 108 percent increase in the rate of elective abortions.”

Mr. President, abortions cost money.

But doesn’t this all miss the point? The president wants to pull the rug out from under our religious freedom to save money? If his premise is true, those who find no objections with his Mandate would scramble to offer this coverage all on their own. Those who do object can still avoid the coverage. What business is it of the government anyway?

Obama: “Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98% of Catholic women, have used contraception.”

Quiner’s Diner: Here the president manipulates the public. The real survey result attribute this statistic to “sexually experienced” women, whatever that means.They do not represent ALL women. Let us cut through the smoke. The survey goes on to say those devices and services to be included in the Obama Mandate are used by 69% of sexually active women “who do not want to become pregnant”.

This represents but a slice of the general public, and yet the Obama Mandate forces every man and woman to pay for it.

Obama: “Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.”

Quiner’s Diner: Again the president manipulates.  Every state mandate allows faith-based organizations to void the mandate in one of three ways: 1. If these institutions choose to self-insure prescription drug coverage. 2. By dropping that particular coverage altogether. 3. By taking refuge in a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state mandates. The Obama Mandate allows no such ways out. He has backed faith-based organizations into a corner: comply and compromise your religious freedom, or face the wrath of the State.

Obama: “No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover. Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

Quiner’s Diner: How do you think women who want the products demanded by the Obama Mandate are able to get it without co-pay or without it applying to their deductible? Because women (and men) who object are subsidizing it.


  1. G on March 9, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    It is unfathomable to me that some people truly want to empower government to give them more stuff, thus also empowering the government to decide what the citizens can have, and can not have.

    Keep up the good work.

  2. Embattled Farmers on March 9, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    The real lesson here is that it’s time to end employer-based health insurance, which was started only as a way to evade wage and price controls during WWII. Employers couldn’t offer scarce workers higher wages, so they offered them “free” health insurance.

    Of course it’s not free. Wages and salaries would be higher if we bought our own insurance with the benefits that we choose. It’s absurd that when you lose your job, you lose your health insurance. You don’t lose your car insurance or your home insurance!

    And costs would come down. We don’t have a true free market where the person using the health care and the person paying for it are not the same. When something is essentially free, more of it is used. We need consumer-based health insurance.

    I’m frustrated that with all the Republican presidents since WWII, none of them has pushed to end employer-based health insurance, so now we’ve ended up with Obamacare, based on Romneycare.

    What Mitt didn’t get is that you have to focus on costs before focusing on getting everybody insured. Obama has simply adopted Mitt’s misguided approach. This way, costs will remain high. If you get costs down, then insurance becomes more affordable, and you get more people insured.

    • quinersdiner on March 10, 2012 at 6:44 am

      I’m with you on this one. Thanks for writing.

      • Embattled Farmers on March 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm

        I’m sure when it was adopted in 1943 for war-related reasons, no one thought it would still be around 70 years later!
        How did it go on Thursday?

        • quinersdiner on March 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm

          Small turnout. What was interesting to me was that none of the 19 or 20 year olds in attendance even knew who Pope John II was! Thanks for asking.

          • Embattled Farmers on March 10, 2012 at 5:32 pm

            That’s incredible that they didn’t know. But at least they know now thanks to you!
            I think if you can make a presentation and enlighten just one person, it’s worth it.

  3. Paul Sharp on March 10, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Employer based health insurance has always puzzled me. Why is health insurance less costly through an employer? Does the gov’t provide subsidies to employers for providing health insurance? So unfair to self employed people! I agree w/Embattled Farmers’ response above.

    And – great post by Mr. Quiner; keep up the good work.

  4. 3guys1movie on March 11, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I would like to see an end to all non-profits tax free status, churches included, why should some organizations belief in some invisible fairy tale guy in the sky preclude them from paying taxes?

    • quinersdiner on March 11, 2012 at 1:41 pm

      What does that have to do with the Obama Mandate anyway? Actually it does in a way, I suppose. The Supreme Court made it clear in 1971 why churches should not be taxed in Lemon v. Kurtzman. They said there is a difference between constitutionally separate “sovereigns,” that this idea is supported by more than 200 years of experience. If the U.S. government can tax the Catholic Church, a sovereign entity according to the Supreme Court, for example, that makes them subservient to the state, a violation of the First Amendment, something Mr. Obama has no problem with, but the rest of the country does. Thanks for commenting.

Leave a Comment