Mediaboss Marketing

HuffPost's QuickRead...

Loading...

HuffPost's QuickRead...

EDITION: U.S. CA Canada  Québec FR France US United States UK United Kingdom Arizona Shooting Social Security Labor Mitch McConnell Smarter Ideas More Log in | Sign Out February 12, 2012 Like

111k

  CONNECT     FRONT PAGE U.S. UK CANADA QUÉBEC FRANCE POLITICS 2012 BLOG HUFFPOST HILL 2012 ELECTIONS FUNDRACE GREEN POLLSTER SPECULATRON OFF THE BUS BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT CELEBRITY ENTERTAINMENT MUSIC RADIO MOVIES TV GAMES COMEDY TECH TECH TECHCRUNCH JOYSTIQ SCIENCE ENGADGET APPLE BLOG MEDIA LIFE & STYLE STYLE NEWS STYLELIST FOOD NEWS WEDDINGS PARENTS GREEN TRAVEL STYLELIST HOME KITCHEN DAILY DIVORCE HUFF/POST50 RELIGION CULTURE ARTS PARENTS TRAVEL COLLEGE RELIGION IMPACT BOOKS EDUCATION COMEDY HEALTHY LIVING HEALTH AND FITNESS HEALTH NEWS MINDFUL LIVING SLEEP WOMEN HEALTHY LIVING PARENTS LOCAL NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO DENVER MIAMI PATCH CHICAGO LOS ANGELES DC DETROIT YELLOW PAGES MORE GOOD NEWS SCIENCE BLACKVOICES SPORTS WORLD GAY VOICES GREEN LATINOVOICES COLLEGE CRIME WEIRD NEWS HIGH SCHOOL POLITICS POLLSTER ELECTION DASHBOARD 2012 ELECTIONS 2012 BLOG 2012 TOOLBAR SPECULATRON HUFFPOST HILL FUNDRACE OFF THE BUS OCCUPY CPI

Original post:
Mitt Romney Confronted About Cayman Islands Investments At Maine Town Hall (VIDEO)

In the wake of an uproar over the Obama administration’s new mandate that all employers offer health insurance covering contraception — including religious organizations — the administration offered an “accommodation” to religious groups whose belief systems conflict with the rule.

According to those initially opposed to the mandate, the adjustment to the rules is not enough.

Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise, who led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama administration to reverse the mandate, explained that the adjustment is merely a repackaging of the original rule and called upon the White House, again, to reverse course.

“It is extremely disappointing that President Obama continues to attack religious freedom by refusing to reverse the HHS ruling,” Scalise said.

“This latest mandate by President Obama is no compromise at all, and will continue to infringe on the religious freedom of individuals by forcing coverage of abortion-inducing drugs regardless of their own religious beliefs,” he added. “I am calling on the Obama Administration to completely reverse this mandate, not repackage it under a different name, because hard working American taxpayers will not stand by and let President Obama attack our religious freedoms and trample on the Bill of Rights by forcing the costs of abortion-inducing drugs to be passed on to all employers regardless of their faith.”

Under the new rules, religious organizations will not have to directly provide contraceptive services, but instead give the responsibility for free birth control directly to the insurance companies.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said that the mandate is still in violation of the Constitution.

“This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs,” said Jordan. “This is not just a problem for church-affiliated hospitals and charities. Under these rules, a small business owner with religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs and contraception must either violate his religious beliefs or violate the law.”

Richard Doerflinger, a top official at the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, told the Weekly Standard prior to the announcement that such a compromise “would be worse”.

“Just a few days ago the White House was saying that this is just about coverage, that no one has to be involved in getting people to the actual services they object to. It would be no improvement to say: ‘Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic,’ he wrote in an email. The Administration’s press release of January 20 hinted at such a requirement. That would not be a compromise. In some ways it would be worse.”

Al Kresta host of a syndicated Catholic radio show explained that Catholics still cannot support the mandate, even with the adjustment.

“Our bishops have made clear that we cannot, we will not, comply. And this so-called accommodation sounds a hollow gesture,” he said. “We call on the Catholic faithful and all who value freedom of conscience to continue the battle for true conscience protection for religious organization and individuals. Make no mistake, we are in a fight for the future of religious freedom in this country.”

Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest added that the new pronouncement is a step backward.

“Once again, the Obama Administration is taking a step in the wrong direction. This new pronouncement turns Roe v. Wade on its head. In Roe, the courts said that abortion was a privacy right,” she said. “In this health care dictate, the Obama administration announces plans to invade the privacy of women by requiring insurance companies to inquire about their private choices and offer free drugs. And the administration announces that insurance companies will take on this burden at no cost to anyone. And it is incredibly naive to believe that this will not cost either women or their employers. Insurance companies will surely take the projected expenses of these efforts into account when pricing coverage.”

In 2008 Obama won the Catholic vote 54-46%.

Follow Caroline on Twitter
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Caption this: Tax Dodgers

Pro-lifers pan Obama contraceptive adjustment: Still 'attacking religious freedom'

Obama uses insurance companies to impose church-state mandate

Occupy CPAC hippiecam

Who's paying Occupiers to disrupt CPAC, and how much?

Originally posted here:
Pro-lifers pan Obama contraceptive adjustment: Still ‘attacking religious freedom’

Select a Publication:   N E W S P A P E R S ---------------------------------------------- ---Alberta--- Airdrie - Airdrie Echo Banff - Banff Crag and Canyon Beaumont - Beaumont News Calgary - The Calgary Sun Camrose - Camrose Canadian Canmore - Canmore Leader Central Alberta - County Market Cochrane - Cochrane Times Cold Lake - Cold Lake Sun Crowsnest Pass - Crowsnest Pass Promoter Devon - Dispatch News Drayton - Drayton Valley Western Review Edmonton - Edmonton Examiner Edmonton - The Edmonton Sun Edson - Edson Leader Fairview - Fairview Post Fort McMurray - Fort McMurray Today Fort Saskatchewan - Fort Saskatchewan Record Grande Prairie - Daily Herald Tribune Hanna - Hanna Herald High River - High River Times Hinton - Hinton Parklander Lacombe - Lacombe Globe Leduc - Leduc Representative Lloydminster - Meridian Booster Mayerthorpe - Mayerthorpe Freelancer Nanton - Nanton News Peace Country - Peace Country Sun Peace River - Peace River Record Gazette Pincher Creek - Pincher Creek Echo Sherwood Park - Sherwood Park News Spruce Grove - Spruce Grove Examiner Stony Plain - Stony Plain Reporter Strathmore - Strathmore Standard Vermilion - Vermilion Standard Vulcan - Vulcan Advocate Wetaskiwin - Wetaskiwin Times Whitecourt - Whitecourt Star   ---Manitoba--- Altona - Alton Red River Valley Echo Beausejour - Beausejour Review Carman - Carman Valley Leader Gimli - Interlake Spectator Lac Du Bonnet - Lac Du Bonnet Leader Morden - Morden Times Portage la Prairie - Portage Daily Graphic Selkirk - Selkirk Journal Stonewall - Stonewall Argus and Teulon Times Winkler - Winkler Times Winnipeg - The Winnipeg Sun   ---Ontario--- Amherstburg - Amherstburg Echo Bancroft - Bancroft this Week Barrie - Barrie Examiner Barry's Bay - Barry's Bay this Week Belleville - Intelligencer Bradford - Bradford Times Brantford - Expositor Brockville - The Recorder & Times Chatham - Chatham Daily News Chatham - Chatham This Week Chatham - Today's Farmer Clinton - Clinton News-Record Cobourg - Northumberland Today Cochrane - Cochrane Times Post Collingwood - Enterprise Bulletin Cornwall - Standard Freeholder Delhi - Delhi News-Record Dresden - Leader Spirit Dunnville - Dunnville Chronicle Elliot Lake - Standard Espanola - Mid-North Monitor Fort Erie - Times Gananoque - Gananoque Reporter Goderich - Goderich Signal-Star Grand Bend - Lakeshore Advance Haliburton - Haliburton Echo Hanover - The Post Ingersoll - Ingersoll Times Innisfil - Innisfil Examiner Kapuskasing - Kapuskasing Northern Times Kenora - Kenora Daily Miner and News Kenora - Lake of the Woods Enterprise Kincardine - Kincardine News Kingston - Frontenac This Week Kingston - Kingston This Week Kingston - Kingston Whig Standard Kirkland Lake - Northern News Leamington - Leamington Post Lindsay - The Lindsay Post London - The London Free Press London - The Londoner Lucknow - Lucknow Sentinel Midland - Free Press Minden - Minden Times Mitchell - Mitchell Advocate Napanee - Napanee Guide Niagara-on-the-Lake - Niagara Advance Niagara Falls - Review Niagara Falls - Niagara Shopping News Niagara Falls - W. Niagara Community Newspapers North Bay - North Bay Nugget Northumberland - Northumberland Today Norwich - Norwich Gazette Orillia - Packet and Times Ottawa - The Ottawa Sun Owen Sound - Sun Times Oxford - Oxford Review Paris - Paris Star Online Pelham - Pelham News Pembroke - Daily Observer Peterborough - Peterborough Examiner Petrolia - Petrolia Topic Picton - County Weekly News Port Colborne - Inport News Port Hope - Northumberland Today Port Elgin - Shoreline Beacon Sarnia - Observer Sarnia - Sarnia This Week Sault Ste Marie - Sault Star Sault Ste Marie - Sault This Week Seaforth - Seaforth Huron Expositor Simcoe - Simcoe Reformer St. Catharines - St. Catharines Shopping News St. Catharines - Standard St. Thomas - St. Thomas Times-Journal Stirling - Community Press Stratford - The Beacon Herald Strathroy - Strathroy Age Dispatch Sudbury - Sudbury Star Thorold - Thorold News Tillsonburg - Tillsonburg News Timmins - Daily Press Timmins - Timmins Times Toronto - The Toronto Sun Trenton - Trentonian Wallaceburg - Wallaceburg Courier Press Welland - Tribune Welland - Welland News West Lorne - The Chronicle Wiarton - Wiarton Echo Woodstock - Sentinel Review   ---Saskatchewan--- Meadow Lake - Meadow Lake Progress Melfort - Melfort Journal Nipawin - Nipawin Journal   MAGAZINES & SPECIALTY PUBLICATIONS --------- Biz Magazine Business London Cottage Home and Property Showcase Food and Wine Show Georgian Web Hamilton Halton Weddings Hamilton Magazine InterVin International Wine Awards Kingston Life London Citylife Muskoka Magazine Muskoka Trails Niagara Food and Wine Expo Niagara Magazine Ontario Farmer Ontario Golf Sault Bride Guide Sault Dining Sault Good Life Simcoe Life
Sudbury Bride Guide The Home Show Vines Magazine What's Up Muskoka

See the original post here:
Religious freedom shouldn't surpass our Criminal Code: LETTER OF THE DAY

PROVIDENCE – The R.I. Center for Freedom and Prosperity asserted that the tax and fee hikes proposed by Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee on Jan. 31 would cost the state 1,400 private-sector jobs.

The conservative think tank, which formed from the ashes of the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, said Thursday that it bought a State Tax Analysis Modeling Program customized for Rhode Island in order to do an analysis of the state budget. It was developed by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and is a five-year, dynamic, computable, general-equilibrium tax model.

Chafee unveiled a $7.94 billion state budget for fiscal 2013 last month that boosts spending on local schools by extending the reach of the state sales tax and cutting spending on other areas, including health care services.

“Because a sales tax increase would make Rhode Island even less competitive with its regional neighbors, and nationally overall, consumer and entrepreneurial behavior would be significantly altered, resulting in lower economic activity and actually worsening the state’s economic plight,” the Tax Plan Analysis outlined.

The center’s economist, J. Scott Moody, entered revenue targets from the budget. He asserted that since tax increases “depress overall economic activity,” the state’s expected $95 million revenue increase would be just $35 million.

He also contended that the state would lose 1,400 private-sector jobs. To compare, the 2011 R.I. Employment Trends and Workforce Issues brief, published by the state labor department, found that private-sector employment decreased by 819 jobs, or 0.2 percent, between 2009 and 2010, while increasing by 1,900 jobs from 2010 to 2011.

The center also claimed that municipalities would lose $9.75 million in revenue due to lower commercial property taxes, as a consequence of lower overall economic activity. In addition, Rhode Island would lose nearly 1 percent in overall gross state product, and “investment” – or new capital in the state – would drop by $27 million.

“Balancing the budget is the wrong goal; and tax increases are precisely the wrong solution!” the report said.

Center CEO Mike Stenhouse acknowledged that the algorithm was a “broader tool” than the specifications of the governor’s budget and the projections were rough estimates, based on revenue bumps from $69.7 million in sales tax; $13.6 million in motor vehicle registration fees; a $7 million increase in smoking products and $3.8 million in other miscellaneous taxes and fees that were not included in the projection, he said.

University of Rhode Island economist Leonard Lardaro made some preliminary observations on the analysis, noting:

“First, [the Tax Plan Analysis] does what the state of Rhode Island should have been doing all along but seldom does - due diligence,” he said. “Second, this analysis is not merely restricted to the very short-term (static) effects of proposed policy change, but extends the effects to what also occurs at later times in response to these changes. So, I very much like the methodology – perhaps someday in our lifetimes the state of Rhode Island will actually ‘evolve’ to this level of sophistication in its policymaking.”

Lardaro also noted that the model, like any other, makes assumptions on how the economic pieces fit together and that should be kept in mind when using it.

“I do have to say, however, that if we are to rely on numbers from other than our state, this is the type of model we should pay attention to,” adding that he would need more time to evaluate the specifics of the model before giving a definitive judgment.

Excerpt from:
Analysis: Budget tax, fee hikes to cost jobs