Attacks on the Catholic Church for its Defense of Life & Its Protections of People’s Right of Conscious . . .Sen. Claire McCaskill FINALLY Responds!

The Attacks on the Catholic Church for its Defense of Life & Its Protections of People’s Right of Conscious . . . Sen. Claire McCaskill FINALLY Responds!

Senator Claire McCaskill finally Responds to the Big B Files’ Letter regarding the Attacks on the Catholic Church for its Defense of Life and Its Protections of People’s Right of Conscious is the Subject of this Big B File.

            As you know by now . . . on January 20th, 2012, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius (a CINO) issued a statement which said, “After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.”

As you also know, I wrote an email to both Missouri Senators, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (a CINO) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) was written as follows:

Dear Senator Claire McCaskill, 

I am Constituent of yours and a Devout Roman Catholic. The Obama Administration has basically said with the mandate issued last august and finalized on January 20th, 2012 that we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health coverage for our employees (and bring about the consequences for all in doing so).  As St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson said in his letter to the St. Louis Faithful:

 “In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And, as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health coverage for our employees (and bring about the consequences for all in doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give nonprofit employers, like hospitals and universities, which do not currently provide such coverage, one year in which to comply.

We believe this new requirement signals a direct attack on our religious freedom. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God-given rights. In generations past, the Church has always counted on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.”

  There is currently a bill in the Senate called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 (  As a Constituents of yours and a Roman Catholic, I ask will you stand up for your Catholic constitutiants and the Catholic Church and vote yes for the bill or will you side with President Obama and vote no on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012?

Sincerely Yours,

Mr. Bryan V. Hewing
Ballwin, MO 63021-8813


I sent the above letter back on Saturday, February 11, 2012 and I have just received a reply from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) today in a form letter and after I had posted the following on her official facebook page . . .

       “What is your stance on the Obama Administration forcing the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities, and other Religious based businesses and organizations to violate their consciences & Religious beliefs and pay (via insurance premiums) for contraception and abortions?       There is currently a bill in the Senate called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 ( As a Roman Catholic, I ask will you stand up for your Catholic constitutiants and the Catholic Church and vote yes for the bill or will you side with President Obama and vote no on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012?”

Senator Roy Blunt talked about the HHS mandate and the administration’s attack on the Rights of Conscience on the Senate Floor recently, which made national headlines as well. Sen. Claire McCaskill and others like her are what the Big B Files refers to as CINOs (Catholics in Name Only). CINOs claim to be devout Catholics, but outright reject church teaching especially on the moral teachings of the church.  By taking the positions she has on the issue of abortion and other issues of life, Sen. Claire McCaskill has effectively brought public scandal to herself by proporting to being a devout Roman Catholic while at the same time advocating positions and views that are totally contrary to Catholic teaching . . . all at the same time.  Furthermore, Sen. Claire McCaskill cannot receive Holy Communion (The Body and Blood of Christ himself) in accordance to the following Code of Canon Laws of the Catholic Church . . .

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.–          Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican Website)

As the Big B Files has said before . . . If she were really a devout Roman Catholic, Sen. Claire McCaskill would not only renounce her support and advocacy of Abortion and other prositions she has taken against the Church’s teachings on the life issues along with ending the attacks she has done to the Church on the life issues, but fully embrace and promote the Church teachings when it comes to the issues of life . . . including Abortion.

I got a response in the form of a form letter (the same exact letter sent to everyone with the exception of the name of the addressee) from Sen. McCaskill dated March 12th, in which she reaffirmed her support for the HHS Contraception Mandate and Obamacare in general (to whichGerald Nieters, a St. Charles County-based attorney and state lobbyist for Missouri Right-to-Life responded to  {responses are in Red} and the Big B Files agrees with) . . . .            

March 12, 2012

Dear Mr. Nieters,

       Thank you for contacting me regarding birth control and women’s health.  I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.I believe we should all work to prevent and reduce the number of abortions in this country. I agree and the legalizing of abortion by the U. S. Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases led to an explosion of abortions in this country. If you want to reduce the numbers, you could start by making them illegal. I support access to birth control, which will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and ultimately reduce abortions.  I wish this were true.  Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s own statistics show that 50% of the women who have abortions were actively using birth control.  The availability of birth control merely encourages the sexes to engage in risky behavior (sex) in which they might not otherwise engage without “ineffective” birth control.  We all know that the only way to insure pregnancy prevention is to not have sex. This is an emotional, difficult subject.  But if you really believe that reducing abortions is important in this country, which I do, then it doesn’t work to keep putting up barriers to women getting birth control.  You can’t seriously claim that the failure of insurance plans to cover birth control denies women access to birth control.  Doesn’t Planned Parenthood advertise free birth control for those who want it?  For this reason, I voted against the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Roy Blunt (Senate Amendment 1520), which would have allowed any employer, health plan sponsor, or insurance company to refuse coverage for their employees for any type of essential health care services — including birth control, maternity care, prenatal testing, and HIV/AIDS screening — based solely on an undefined “moral objection.” Shouldn’t everyone in this country be entitled to act in accordance with their conscience? Should you be forced to act in a manner objectionable to your conscience? Not in the America I know!

As you may know, following considerable debate, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reached a compromise so that religiously-affiliated employers will not have to provide birth control if it violates that employer’s religious beliefs. With whom did it reach this compromise? The Catholic bishops did not agree to this compromise. This supposed compromise is a distinction without a difference. Whether the Church pays for the coverage directly or merely provides the coverage to be paid by someone else is merely an accounting gimmick. This compromise, which I support, ensures that all women with employer-sponsored health plans will have access to free preventive health services, while protecting the religious freedom of religiously-affiliated employers.  If a church or religious employer determines that covering birth control would be inconsistent with their organization’s beliefs, the insurance company rather than the employer will be required to offer these services directly to women.  This mandate can not in any way be reconciled with the conscience rights of religious institutions that are self insured.

Groups on both sides of the debate, including the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood, have expressed their support of this compromise.  Of course, Planned Parenthood is for the mandate. The more users of birth control results in more unintended pregnancies which results in more abortion business for them.  I can not speak to the mind set of the Catholic Health Association, but the official spokesmen of the Catholic Church are the bishops and they speak in a unanimous voice in opposition to this compromise. Under the new HHS guidelines, no one will be required to use birth control or other preventive care services under any plan.  Each woman, pursuant to her own beliefs, will access the services she deems appropriate.  However, a woman will not be denied access to health services, like birth control, based on the decision of her employer, instead of retaining for herself the right to choose whether to use birth control or not.  The woman would not be denied access to birth control in any event. She merely would not be able to force her employer to pay for it against the employer’s moral conscience. The new guidelines also do not eliminate or change existing conscience protections, which I support, that allow doctors and individual healthcare providers to choose whether or not to prescribe or administer birth control in accordance with their own beliefs. The conscience right of the health care worker is a different issue beyond the insurance coverage mandate and what we are addressing here.  I would be happy to discuss that issue with you separately at another time.

It should be noted that 28 states already require health insurance plans to cover contraceptive services. You are lacking full disclosure here. While many states have similar mandates, nearly all have exceptions for conscience rights and not one goes as far in their mandate as that proposed by the HHS under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The compromise guidelines follow in the steps of most states, including Missouri, which have already found a reasonable way to ensure access to preventive health services while also respecting employers’ First Amendment right to religious freedom, a fundamental principle on which our nation was founded. It is interesting that you mention Missouri.  You may not be aware that the Missouri legislature is working feverishly this session to ensure conscience rights and religious freedom protections that the HHS mandate seeks to deny.

  Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Finally, I must state that the administration’s premise that the Church find a compromise that will allow all women to obtain insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs is inherently flawed. Any effort to get the Church to figure out a way to provide coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs for every woman without violating its conscience is self defeating.  To even engage in the effort is a violation of that same conscience.  Your goal itself is in conflict with the Church’s right of conscience.Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Gerard A Nieters


Claire McCaskill
United States Senator

Sound familiar to you folks?  The above response is the most arrogant response from a member of Congress or anyone speaking for a member of Congress to date and is one reason why she needs to be tossed out of the Senate for Good.  And that is the Big B Files. Click on the comments link below and let me know what you think . . . . I’m Bryan Hewing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Powered by

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: