Oregon Taxpayers ‘Stuck’ With Bill From Failed Obamacare Website

Editorial Note: What could the Oregon tax payers do with $303 million? We will never know since another one of this administration’s financial fiascos has disappeared down the health rat hole. The following piece was posted by Newsmax TV on April 25, 2014 and written by Todd Beamon.

Republicans slammed the taxpayer waste from scrapping Oregon’s $303 million, problem-plagued Obamacare health exchange on Friday, citing it as yet another example of why the healthcare law should be repealed.

“Once again, Obamacare causes chaos and confusion for Oregonians,” Rep. Greg Walden, the state’s only GOP member of Congress, said in a statement. “Today, the same board that oversaw the colossal waste at Cover Oregon voted to throw in the towel, and taxpayers are left stuck with the bill.

“The board should explain further to the taxpayers of Oregon and the nation how exactly this massive failure happened.”

Jahan Wilcox, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said: “It’s remarkable that Cover Oregon was such a disaster that moving into the troubled HealthCare.gov is considered an improvement.”

He also referenced U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley’s support of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The Oregon Democrat, who has since distanced himself from the beleaguered law, is seeking re-election this fall.

“Oregonians can give themselves a real upgrade by firing Sen. Jeff Merkley, whose deciding vote for Obamacare resulted in the creation of Cover Oregon,” Wilcox said.

The board overseeing the state’s Obamacare program, Cover Oregon, on Friday accepted an advisory committee’s recommendation to ditch its troubled portal after spending months and millions of dollars on trying to get it to work. Oregon instead will use HealthCare.gov for private policies.

According to Cover Oregon officials, fixing the troubled portal would have cost $78 million and would have taken too long. Using HealthCare.gov, which has had its own share of glitches and problems since the Obamacare rollout, would cost just $4 million to $6 million.

“I don’t know that anyone in the room is excited about going down this path,” Liz Baxter, who chairs the Cover Oregon board, said in a report in The Oregonian. “But I think it’s the only option.”

In more than a dozen states that opted to create their own exchanges, Oregon’s was seen as the most dysfunctional. It was plagued by technical problems so severe that almost all the 50,000 people who signed up for insurance through the exchange did so using paper applications or with help from a professional.

Right up to the end, Oregonians were not able to use the website to sign up for coverage in one sitting.

Oregon residents instead had to use an arduous paper-online process to sign up for insurance — despite the $134 million the state paid Oracle Corp. to build the online exchange. Oregon received a monthlong enrollment-deadline extension because of the technology problems.

The state enthusiastically embraced Obamacare, and the website had been a pioneer for state marketplaces.

And even though several other states have had major problems with their Obamacare exchanges, only Oregon has voted to scrap it entirely. Maryland recently decided to adopt the technology used on Connecticut’s successful exchange.

In March, the Government Accountability Office in Washington said that it would investigate the Oregon exchange, including looking at whether the federal government can reclaim grant money given to Cover Oregon if taxpayer funds were mismanaged.

Officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said they were working with Oregon on the next steps in the effort.

Meanwhile, an independent investigation ordered by Gov. John Kitzhaber found state managers repeatedly disregarded reports about technical problems that prevented the Cover Oregon exchange from launching when the Obamacare individual mandate took effect in October.

It also found that Oracle did a poor job in building the exchange’s technology. Five Oregon officials connected to website’s development have resigned.

Kitzhaber said communications about the portal’s troubles never reached him as the Oct. 1 launch neared. The governor said he agreed with the technology advisory committee’s recommendation to scrap the website.

State officials said they would keep the Cover Oregon website, redesigning it to direct people to HealthCare.gov. Oregon also will use the federal call center, but it will retain some customer outreach, education efforts and initial carrier management.

Because HealthCare.gov enrolls people only in private health plans, Oregonians who are declared eligible for the Medicaid program for low-income Americans will be redirected to the Oregon Health Authority.

That agency can enroll them in the Oregon Health Plan, Oregon’s version of Medicaid.

So far, about 242,000 Oregonians have enrolled in coverage through Cover Oregon. About 70,000 are in private plans, while 172,000 are enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

White House Hubris and Hobby Lobby

by Jim Ray as reported in Insight Edition for Prayer

What could be worse than receiving the news that your son has been shot in the head by the government? The family of Kaveh Alipour knows the answer to that question. The 19-year-old boy was caught in the crossfire in downtown Tehran during a 2009 protest. Family and neighbors say he was just trying to get home from class, but when his father arrived to retrieve his son’s body, he was dealt another sickening blow. Authorities demanded he pay a “bullet fee” of $3,000 to reimburse Iranian security forces for the cost of the bullet used to kill his son.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. It’s one of many lawsuits spawned by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but this one is notable because the Obama Administration has staked out an ideological position that mirrors that of the ayatollahs. The President’s message is this: Regardless of your views on abortion, the government is going to make you pay for them.

Hobby Lobby’s owners have deeply held religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of life. But the ACA and its enforcer, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have established regulations requiring employers to provide insurance coverage of contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception. Fines for failing to obey the ACA could cost Hobby Lobby up to $1.3 million per day. The Administration position is that only individuals—not companies—can be exempted from the law on the basis of religious conscience.

For most Christians and many others, abortion is a moral issue of the highest consequence. And in recognition of this, there have long been restrictions on government funding of abortion. The Hyde Amendment, first introduced in 1976, prohibits the use of federal money for abortion with certain narrow exceptions.

But President Obama is whittling away those restrictions, and some believe he is ignoring “conscience protections” that don’t align with his own views. Does he now want every taxpaying citizen to fund abortion on demand? Consider that:

  • In 2009, President Obama promised that under the ACA, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” This pledge was made to Congress in a speech infamously interrupted by Representative Joe Wilson, who shouted out, “You Lie!” to the president. But it’s now clear that many of the insurance plans subsidized with taxpayer money under the ACA do, in fact, include abortion funding. Wilson’s outburst may have been inappropriate but it doesn’t appear now to have been inaccurate.
  • The text of the ACA drafted by Congress requires that insurance coverage provide “preventative care and screenings” for women without defining exactly what that means. But HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, appointed by the President, has specifically mandated coverage for abortifacients. Thus, this initiative indisputably represents the will of the White House.
  • The Administration has granted hundreds of ACA waivers, including many which appear calculated to benefit businesses in the districts of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other Democrats. It is disingenuous to permit some companies to be completely exempt from the law, leaving millions potentially uninsured, while simultaneously arguing that people will be harmed if a Christian company cannot exclude four drugs—out of thousands—from its insurance plan.
  • There are ample resources available, outside of the ACA, for anyone who wants these products. For example, the “Plan B” pill costs about $35 at retail outlets but is available for free at many Planned Parenthood clinics. And, with annual revenue of well over one billion dollars and more than 700 clinics, Planned Parenthood can meet a substantial demand.

These and other facts raise questions: Why is the President taking such a hard line against Hobby Lobby? Is this economic or spiritual? Is it about health care…or hubris? For those who believe abortion is the taking of innocent human life, the ACA is quickly becoming President Obama’s “bullet fee,” and his message is clear: shut up and pay up.

Yet, the White House will not have the last word on this. Scripture teaches that God will not tolerate a nation which sheds the innocent blood of its children. (Psalm 106:38) Today, pray for the Supreme Court Justices as they decide the Hobby Lobby case. This decision ultimately is not about a president’s pride or a corporate craft store, but about the future of religious freedom.

Jim Ray is a writer, fundraiser and consultant. He and his wife Stacey have two children and reside in Nashville, TN.

Over 75, No Obama Care

Well, here it is. Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number THE CARE BILL HB 3200 JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL. Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX – highlighted the most egregious pages of HB 3200 Please read this, especially the reference to pages 58 & 59 JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

  • Page 50/section 152: the bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
  • Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
  • Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN)
  • Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
  • Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees. This is what they do in Sweden too. I know because Alf’s daughter Ann is an OB/GYN, and her husband, Thorsten, is a surgeon.
  • Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.
  • Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
  • Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling)
  • Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Judge Kithil then goes on to identify: “Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.”
No wonder they did not see the need to read it….doesn’t apply to them!!! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO STAND UP TO WASHINGTON. I don’t know if we can do anything, but awareness helps.
Winds Of Change — Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. At least 20 if you can. It has to stop somewhere. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have this message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Would You Accept My Offer for A Free House?

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn’t work for health care.” Another said, “The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had more than enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money whatsoever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.”

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.

“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up your a** old man. I want no part of it!” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. ‘You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends. You cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.”

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn, and for that which you did not earn, you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away. Therefore, it is not freedom at all.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

  1. I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation — and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you, Sir. These kids don’t understand Liberty.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one. It is an honor to pick up the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country. Remember… Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the American Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian.” Henry Ford

It’s amazing that people who think we can not afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and medication somehow think that
we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and
a huge government bureaucracy to administer it.

Thomas Sowell

Obama Care for Seniors

All the NEW things we are going to learn – just the tip of the iceberg!


  • If you are over 75, you will find this outrageous.
  • If you are younger, then this applies to your parents and grandparents.

Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happen in 2013 and 2014!

Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out the needle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that my insurance takes care of it.

She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr. about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but they had tried every-thing they could but Medicare is beginning to turn many things away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. She was brushing at tears and said, “Some day they too will get old”, I am so very sorry!!


At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment * see page 272.

What Nancy Pelosi didn’t want us to know until after the health care bill was passed. Remember she said, “We have to pass the Bill so that we can see what’s in it.” Well, here it is.

Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number

JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL. Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX – highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200. Please read this, especially the reference to pages 58 & 59


  • Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
  • Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
  • Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now- ACORN).
  • Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
  • Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.
  • Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.
  • Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
  • Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
  • Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:
“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas

All of the above should give you the ammo you need to oppose Obamacare. Please send this information on to all you love up or down.

“This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me.” 

No longer true my friend, no longer true.

Is it Possible to Kill Obamacare?

iF you are one of the 49% that voted against Obama in the recent election, you may discouraged siimply because you have a pretty good sense of what is coming. Obama is only one issue of concern. This administration intends to continue to unbridled spending of the first four years, created more debt that our great grandchildren will be unable to bear.

Joseph Farah, founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND (America’s Independent News Network) an answer to our question. This is what he wrote,

“House Republicans alone have it in their power to kill Obamacare, cut $1 trillion in borrowing and spending and start the nation’s return to constitutionally limited government with one vote.

Click here to learn more about the best way to do this

That vote, he says, is a rejection of raising the debt limit – thereby denying Obama the funds he needs for Obamacare and “a thousand other programs that are wasteful, unconstitutional, immoral and about to take the country off the fiscal cliff.”

Is there a chance Republicans will do it?

‘It will happen only if Americans rise up in big numbers and demand it of them,’ he says. ‘Republicans have it in their power. They only need an injection of courage.’

That’s where the “No More Red Ink” campaign comes in – a program launched by Farah in January 2011 to persuade the new Republican-controlled House to freeze the debt limit thereby dramatically slashing spending and effectively balancing the budget overnight.

“Many people responded to this plan over the last two years, but not enough,” said Farah. “But, quite honestly, this is the only game left in town. Republicans and conservatives can watch their country go down the drain slowly over the next four years, or they can take action and demand that Republicans use the power they have and live up to their own rhetoric by stopping the borrowing madness right now.”

The problem is, Farah says, that the House Republican leadership is afraid of the media – afraid of how such a radical action will be portrayed and perceived. They’re also afraid it will create more dislocation and the terminations of hundreds of thousands of government workers in Washington.

“When I think about the risks our founders took 246 years ago and compare that with the timidity of our elected officials today, it’s enough to make me sick,” Farah said. “We need to upset the applecart. We need to stop business as usual in Washington. We need to get on offense. We need to start taking some risks. We need to challenge the status quo. We need to do all of this because borrowing more money is simply unsustainable, immoral and catastrophic to the future of our country. It’s time to put Republicans to the test: Are they men or are they mice? Do they really believe in constitutionally limited government or don’t they? If we cannot persuade them to do the right thing, then, frankly, this experiment known as the United States of America is already over.”

I believe we have one more shot to save AmericaSo far House Republicans have been flooded with more than 1.5 million letters calling on them to freeze borrowing through the “No More Red Ink” campaign.

Farah says a few million more right now could make all the difference – and that”s what the “No More Red Ink” campaign is all about.

“It’s got new life after the election,” Farah said. “People are realizing this is the only game left in town. If we want to stop Obama, if we want to stop the crazy borrowing, if we want to stop Obamacare, if we want to stop the insane spending, we need to give the Republicans a backbone injection.”

Joseph Farah
Editor and Chief Executive Officer

Christians ‘Free to Practice Their Faith in Private’

Rights precedent pending as tribunal warned of discrimination Published: 17 hours ago by BOB UNRUHEmail | Archive Bob Unruh

The European Court of Human Rights is expected to decide soon whether Christians across the continent can be forced by employers to act in violation of their religious faith – an issue that has become white-hot in the United States with the Obama administration’s requirement that religious employers provide abortion services for their employees.

In Europe, the conflict has been developing for several years already, and is culminating with an expected ruling from the ECHR on four different cases, argued just today.

They are the Eweida and Chaplin cases, in which employees were disciplined for wearing “a small cross on a chain around their neck,” and the Ladele and McFarlane cases, in which public employees were ordered to perform same-sex civil ceremonies in violation of their biblically based beliefs.

The European Center for Law and Justice filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the two cases involving same-sex ceremonies. The four cases all oppose sanctions against Christian employees for following their faith in basic and unobtrusive ways.

“While, on the one hand, the four applicants asked for respect for their freedom of religion and conscience and for the right not to be discriminated against because of their faith, on the other hand, the responding government[‘s] ultimate argument was: ‘their freedom of religion is respected because they are free to resign and to practice their religion in private,’” said a report today from the ECLJ’s director, Gregor Puppinck.

“Such an argument goes too far; it is also unrealistic because the applicants were not ‘free’ to resign, but have been fired,” he said. “Therefore, the ECLJ is reasonably optimistic as to the positive outcome of those cases for the applicants, especially because in none of the four cases it was argued that the sanction was proportionate.”

He said the ruling is expected in a few weeks or months.

In his brief filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Ladele and McFarlane cases, he said, “Employees are subject to contractual obligations and a duty of loyalty to their employer, but do not lose the right to enjoy freedom of conscience and religion.”

But he added: “The employer has the obligation to respect the freedom of conscience and religion of his employees and not to practice discrimination in this respect. The employees’ internal conscience enjoys full protection: the employer cannot discriminate against, or penalize, an employee for his beliefs or religion. Nor can he force them to change their beliefs or religion.”

And even with the “external” indications of a conscience, an employer should accept actions and conditions that do not “disrupt the smooth running of the business,” he said.

The ECLJ explained in the two cases in which it filed documentation, the plaintiffs are Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane. Ladele worked for the London Borough of Islington until 2009 and McFarlane was a counselor for relate until 2008.

“Both of them consider that homosexual relationships are contrary to God’s law and that it is incompatible with their judgment and beliefs to do anything to condone homosexuality,” the ECLJ explained.

“When the Civil Partnership Act came into force in the United Kingdom in December 2005, the first applicant was informed by her employer that she would henceforth be required to officiate civil partnership ceremonies between homosexual couples. Refusing to sign an amended contract, disciplinary proceedings were brought against her in May 2007 which concluded that, if she failed to include civil partnership ceremonies as part of her duties, she would be in breach of Islington Council’s equality and diversity policy and her contract could be terminated,” the group said.

“In the case of Mr. McFarlane, by the end of 2007 his superiors as well as other therapists had expressed concern that there was conflict between his religious beliefs and his work with same-sex couples. In March 2008, after a disciplinary investigation, Mr McFarlane was dismissed summarily for gross misconduct on the ground that he had stated that he would comply with Relate’s Equal Opportunities Policies and provide counseling to same-sex couples without any intention of doing so.

“Both applicants brought proceedings before the internal tribunals on grounds of religious discrimination, but their claims were rejected on the grounds that their employers were not only entitled to require them to carry out their duties but also to refuse to accommodate views which contradicted their fundamental declared principles.”

In the other two cases, Nadia Eweida worked for British Airways and Shirley Chaplin worked for the Royal Devon and Exeter National Health Service Foundation Trust.

They each wore small silver crosses on chains around their necks. Eweida was ordered to go home without pay until she decided to remove the cross, even though BA permitted employees to wear a sikh turban or a Muslim headscarf.

Chaplin was told to remove her crucifix and eventually was moved to a non-nursing position, which then was eliminated.

Puppinck wrote in the two homosexual-union cases, “Even though one may not agree with the rejection of homosexuality, it is indisputable that it is based on both a religious prescription and a prescription of conscience.

“Mr. McFarlane’s case is simple to resolve. The choice to question the morality of homosexuality and to form beliefs on this basis is protected by article 9, paragraph 1. Nobody can be punished simply for holding opinions or beliefs,” Puppinck argued. “McFarlane never refused to offer advice to homosexual couples on issues of sexuality, and has already advised two lesbian couples. … He had merely shared with his superiors the questions he had asked himself … following rumors concerning the issue.”

Ladele was given the additional duty of same-sex civil partnerships although her employment contract did not cover those responsibilities.

Further, the case against her was developed only after complaints from “two homosexual officers who could not tolerate Mrs. Ladele’s situation.”

“Taking into account the state’s obligation to ensure the pluralism, tolerance and open-mindedness that underpins the [Human Rights] Convention, and with respect to the presented facts, the state’s attitude cannot be justified by the protection of the rights of others, it cannot be considered necessary in a democratic society and as representing a fair balance between the various interests at stake.”

In the U.S., the issue was raised by an Obama administration decision to require employers, including religious employers, to subsidize the nation’s abortion industry by providing abortion services to employees as part of their health care package.

In response, dozens of members of Congress already have signed on to lawsuits challenging the Obamacare mandate.

One federal judge already has halted enforcement against a Denver company, and the government voluntarily has waived enforcement for now in a case brought on behalf of a Michigan company.

The American Center for Law and Justice, representing 79 members of Congress, has filed briefs in 12 separate lawsuits brought by more than 40 Catholic organizations suing over the requirement.

The plaintiffs in the cases include the Archdiocese of New York, the University of Notre Dame and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

And leaders of a multitude of religious-advocacy groups are warning of the Obamacare contraception mandate consequences for business owners of faith:

Larry Cirignano, president of Faithful Catholic Citizens: “Give up your religion or go bankrupt. This is not a mandate; it is an ultimatum. Buy insurance and kill babies or go bankrupt fighting us. Not all of us can afford lawyers to fight this ‘mandate.’”

Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate: “Aug. 1 will be remembered as the day our most cherished liberty was thrown in a government dumpster and hauled away. A day when family owned small businesses were forced to abandon their religious beliefs to provide products and services for free. And if they don’t, they will be taxed and fined at a time when job creators are struggling with enough costs and bureaucratic red-tape at every level of government just to stay in business. While the courts have provided a reprieve for one family business in Colorado, the government will never be able to repair the broken conscience of thousands of others until this mandate is removed.”

Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica: “August 1st is a day that will live in infamy for the First Amendment and the fundamental freedoms and rights we as a people have enjoyed since the founding of our nation. The HHS mandate imposed on the American people is the beginning of the end of freedom as America has known it and loved it. August 1st marks the day when many family owned and operated businesses lose their rights to exercise their faith in their daily lives. The government has told them – either comply with this mandate in violation of your faith and do what we tell you, or you will pay crippling faith fines to the federal government. With the stroke of a pen, the Obama administration has shredded the First Amendment and the Constitution right before our eyes.”

Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute: “The Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty is taking root. … Failure to comply with the mandate will result in penalties that could cost business millions of dollars. The administration clearly did not reach a much-vaunted ‘accommodation’ with business owners who strongly oppose the mandate and believe it is a clear violation of their constitutional protection of religious liberty. The HHS mandate forces business owners to choose between following their religious beliefs or obedience to the federal government. The Obama administration clearly believes the government is supreme and that individuals and businesses must bow to its dictates or suffer severe consequences. We know that Obamacare is wrong for America. The HHS anti-conscience mandate is clear evidence of why the law violates the most fundamental principles upon which our country is founded.”

Gary Marx, executive director of the Faith & Freedom Coalition: “Confidence in the system and hope for religious liberty was mildly restored when a federal district judge issued a temporary injunction blocking Barack Obama’s health-care mandate from compelling a business to provide insurance coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs. This is certainly a victory, but the fact that it only applies to one company means the federal government is still going to force millions of Americans to choose between having health insurance or their conscience and faith. With an administration intent on suppressing religious liberty, we can expect a historic turnout of voters of faith show up in November.”

Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America: “The only solution that has been provided to the majority of Americans is to stand up and fight for their religious rights by refusing to comply or battling in court. … We must remember the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.’ To force religious groups to deny their deeply held convictions is not called balance; it is called tyranny.”

Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity: “Today as a result of this initial implementation of the HHS mandate, the relationship between the separation of church and state is critically changed. Americans can no longer follow their consciences or religious dictates on issues as critical as abortion-inducing drugs. Organizations such as Wheaton College, or businesses such as Weingartz Supply of Ann Arbor, Mich.,will be forced to violate their consciences. On this sad day Americans have no ‘choice’ in this matter.”

David Stevens, MD and CEO of the Christian Medical Association: “What will stop this administration, with its radical pro-abortion agenda, from further undermining conscience rights and pursuing policies that effectively force out of medicine physicians with life-honoring convictions? Who will keep government panels from effectively denying physicians and patients choice about what are the most effective and appropriate medicines, surgeries and treatments? We call on Congress to turn back this law’s assault on our freedoms and restore American values and constitutional principles in health care.”

Paul E. Rondeau, executive director of American Life League: “History tragically teaches us that if our government can abolish one constitutional right, then all constitutional rights are put in jeopardy. This path sets a dangerous and foolish precedent that First Amendments rights such as freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press and the rights to assemble and petition the government may be just as easily curtailed in the future. We call on all citizens to tell their elected representatives that this erosion of rights must not stand.”

Kristin Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America: “Today marks the beginning of the end of religious and conscience rights in America. As an employer, I am forced to make a false choice between providing a vital service to my employees and violating my conscience and values. The abortion-pill mandate is an egregious attack upon my rights, as well as the rights of all people of values and faith in America.”

Paul Ryan Explains The Plan To Save Medicare

If elected for a second term, President Obama will take $700 BILLION plus from Medicare to support Obamacare. Medicare will cease to exist as remembers when Obamacare is phased in. The cost for insurance for seniors will dramatically increase to the point where many will not be able to afford it. Even now many doctors will not take medicare patients and this will only escalate as Obamacare is implemented. Many doctors will simply leave their practices since they will find it difficult and impossible in many cases to cover their operating cost (every pun intended). There will be fewer doctors to service not only the current patient base but the additional millions added by Obanacare

None of the above is necessary. There is at least one clear articulate voice from the U.S. House of Representatives. Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan explains the Plan to Save Medicare. Paul Ryan makes a serious effort to educate the public with real facts as opposed to the typical smoke and mirrors that unfortunately is all to attractive to the uninformed. The fact that many elections are decided by people who know nothing of the issues is a tragic result of our system.

Paul Ryan Explains The Plan to Save Medicare.

President’s $8 Billion Concidence

FDR once said, “There are no coincidences in politics …

One side of the aisle is making crystal clear that Obama is raping Medicare of more than 700 billion dollars to help fund Obamacare. That alone may cause many seniors to move away from Obama in November.

What most seniors don’t know is exactly how Obama’s heist is going to impact their lives. Many program reductions for seniors were scheduled to be implemented two weeks before the election, however the administration has now delayed those changes so seniors will won’t see the train coming until the election is over and they have been crushed. Click below to see what’s coming down the track (after the election)

The President’s $8 Billion Coincidence