Obama - says one thing, acts another (but he really doesn't care WHAT you believe) - Granite Grok

Obama – says one thing, acts another (but he really doesn’t care WHAT you believe)

Let us honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause.”

baby in wombPresident Obama (2009), Notre Dame Commencement.  Hmm, so the Congress decided to do exactly that – from LifeSite:

House passes bill to stop govt from forcing people to participate in abortion

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The House of Representatives has passed the Conscience Protection Act of 2016 (S. 304), by a 245-182 vote.   Three dependable pro-life Democrats – Henry Cuellar, Daniel Lipinski, and Collin Peterson – voted for the bill, while one pro-abortion Republican – Richard Hanna – voted against it.  The bill, which would prevent the government from discriminating against any health care provider who refuses to “perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate in abortion,” also allows victims of discrimination to sue in civil court.

And what was President Obama’s response (hint: he is aligned with NH GOP State Committeeman Steve Duprey)? Utterly predictable and speaking out of both sides of his mouth (emphasis mine):

The Administration strongly opposes the House Amendment to S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act of 2016, because it would have the consequence of limiting women’s health care choices and because the Administration believes that protections in current Federal law already provide appropriate protection for the rights of conscience. Longstanding Federal policy already prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered. Additionally, the Administration has instituted health care policies that appropriately accommodate religious objections. This bill would unduly limit women’s health care choices by allowing a broadly-defined set of health providers (including secular sponsors of employer-based health coverage) to decline to provide abortion coverage based on any objections. The legislation would also permanently authorize alternative methods of enforcing these provisions that would inevitably lead to confusion.

The Administration is continuing its efforts to protect the rights of conscience, reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of
women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices that they make, which—as the Supreme Court just reaffirmed—are protected by the Constitution.

If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.

So if I say that murdering an unborn child is against my conscience, Obama is still demanding that I do so AND saying that he protects my right on conscience?  This is absolutely gibberish in defence of the pro-abortion movement.  And as to accommodating religious objections, how about we ask the Little Sisters of the Poor how that’s working out for them?  Or the family of Hobby Lobby that had huge expenses in fighting Obama up to the Supreme Court?  Or the Christian colleges out in California that, due to similiar anti-conscience / religious laws there, may have to “accomodate” LGBT couples in their dorms where their Constitutional Right to freedom of religion / expression is tossed aside by “anti-discrimination” statutes and ordinances.

No, what we are seeing is the imposition of the Left’s secular religion, humanism, and that all must kneel to it.

Oops, forgot this:

Yet last month, the Obama administration ruled that two Catholic universities in California must offer abortion coverage in their health insurance plans, despite their religious objections.

Yeah, conscience…

>