Harrison signs letter opposing HHS final rules

Comments (22)
  1. Walt Timm says:

    Thank you!

  2. Andrea Frobel says:

    Thank you for standing against a violation of our Constitution AND the Word. I will continue to support you in this very unstable time of attacks against the foundation of our faith.

  3. Les Winters says:

    I’m so thankful that the LCMS and the Roman church will publicly stand for freedom of conscience and religious rights. If only more Americans will recognize the danger to religious freedoms and stand as well.

  4. Donnette says:

    Thank you for being involved and proactive for our God and beliefs.

  5. Charlotte Gebauer Koelling says:

    May God bless the witness you and other church leaders are giving in these troubled times. If enough committed Christians and adherents of the U.S. Constitution speak out, perhaps someone in this administration will take heed. I keep reminding myself that our God is in charge and we are His beloved children. Thank you, President Harrison, for speaking on our behalf.

  6. Philip Hofman says:

    Well done, Dr. Harrison! We stand with you!

  7. Jarvis Lehmann says:

    Thank you! Pastor Harrison. And God bless your ministry and the United State of America.

  8. Jo Etta Hill says:

    I’m confused.

    “The mandate will take effect in 2015. The final rule states that an organization that objects to providing contraceptives on religious grounds can offer employees a plan that does not provide contraceptive coverage. The health insurer administering the plan then enrolls employees in a separate, individual, private policy that only covers contraceptives at no extra cost.”

    So religious organizations are not required to pay for or provide coverage for contraceptives at no extra cost. And, of course, no one is required to use contraceptives just because they have coverage.

    So just what are you objecting to here?

    1. James Newhard says:

      I seriously doubt any insurance provider would pay claims for abortion/birth control simply ‘out of the goodness of their heart,’ without having income of some sort to cover the expected expenditures. That translates to a slightly higher premium on the ‘general’ policy, or perhaps on all ‘general’ policies, or even a government-paid ‘stipend’ to make up for the so-called “free” coverage. “There no such thing as a ‘free’ lunch.”

      1. Jo Etta Hill says:

        I’m sure you’re right, but that doesn’t address my question.

        The mandate does not require religious organizations to pay for or cover contraceptives. Churches themselves were never under the mandate.

        So why are the objections continuing? The issue is resolved IMO.

        1. Jesse says:

          Actually, your respondent is mistaken. Because pregnancy is more expensive than birth control, there’s a net savings to insurance providers in offering birth control for free.

          And hence, allowing an organization to restrict birth control coverage for their employees forces contributors to pay more for no better reason than submission to their employer’s religious beliefs.

    2. Lisa Davis says:

      If you haven’t already done so, read the letter. The objections involve the government mandating law and policy that is contrary to religious beliefs. If government can make a ruling about this health coverage issue disregarding religious beliefs, the precedent is set for future laws and policies contrary to such beliefs to be passed and upheld.

  9. Sandra Gates says:

    Thank you for standing up for our God given religious freedoms (and by freedom I mean, the freedom to love God in the way He has ordained us to). Thank you for standing firmly against the evil current that tries to overtake us.

  10. Elizabeth Thomson says:

    The recent accommodation does not require religious employers to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. The Catholic Health Association (represents Catholic Hospitals) has accepted this compromise.
    I do not believe the Affordable Care Act takes away our religious freedom. It does what Christians are supposed to do – care about each other and take care of each other so we all have access to health care and a healthy life. Contraception is part of that. Most couples reach a point where they do something to limit the number of children they have or don’t have at all and that is called contraception. Most people use it, including Lutherans.

    1. Jo Etta Hill says:

      I agree Elizabeth. If the Catholic Health Association has accepted the compromise, why is the LCMS still raising objections? I don’t understand that at all.

      I also don’t see how the ACA takes away any religious freedoms either. We’re all in the same boat with our health care system and the ACA makes it a more accessible boat to be in.

    2. Rev. Mark D. Post says:

      Elizabeth, your response is not congruent with the concept of Christian charity.
      You said, ” … the Affordable Care Act … does what Christians are supposed to do – care about each other and take care of each other so we all have access to health care and a healthy life. Contraception is part of that.”

      This is not a correct understanding. Christian care is not about Congress passing legislation to take money from the public at large to pay for a health program determined by those who have proven by their actions and public statements to be pro-abortion, anti-Christian-family liberals. Christian care is not about having a too-powerful government take money from people under threat of penalty to give to others. That would be called socialism, communism, or some form of dictatorship. Christian care is when the love of Christ motivates us to open OUR OWN wallets, our hearts and our appointment books to help those truly in need, especially, as Galatians says, among our Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

      Additionally, as government grows in scope, size, and responsibility for the various concerns of life, history recent and ancient shows that the Family and the Church (both where saving Faith in Jesus is nurtured) shrink in comparison.

      Furthermore, while Christians seem to differ in their views on contraception, nowhere in the Bible do we find that advocating for taxpayer funded contraception (let alone abortion) is considered part of “what Christians are supposed to do.”
      And finally, such views as you have expressed here in support of what is commonly called Obamacare are incongruent with what our Confessions in the explanation of the Fourth Commandment in the Large Catechism, Book of Concord, state is our Bible-based, Christ-centered understanding of the role of government.

      Elizabeth, may the Lord bless you as you study His Word, and you grow in your understanding of this topic from a Lutheran/Biblical/Christian perspective.
      Pastor Post

      1. Rev. Gerald Heinecke says:

        Thank you Rev. Post for that good reply to Elizabeth. The problem is not about condoms, it is about forcing insurance plans to provide abortion-causing drugs such as the morning after pill or devices that keep a fertilized egg from implanting like an IUD. As Lutherans we rightly confess and teach that life begins at conception and so these things eliminate that life that our Heavenly Father has created.

        It is important Elizabeth and Jo Etta that Obamacare does teach God’s holy people to choose sin by saying these abortion-causing drugs are ok to use and as a church body the LCMS does have a responsibility to teach correctly.

        Thank you Pastor Harrison for taking this stand on behalf of the LCMS and may the Lord bless this confession of faith.

        Rev. Gerald Heinecke

  11. Robert says:

    The Catholic Health Association does not represent all Catholic hospitals, nor does it support the Roman Catholic bishops on this matter.

    Shame on you, “Elizabeth” and “Jo Etta,” for propagandizing this Web site.

    1. Elizabeth Thomson says:

      Expressing an opinion is not propagandizing. Provision was made for responses and I responded. Our Synod’s leaders need to know the opinions of all members.

  12. Todd says:

    Since when are Lutherans against birth control? I thought we had separation of Church and State? Since when does the Church think it has the right to control an individual’s choice of being a parent or not? Matthew Harrison – we don’t need a Lutheran Pope!

    1. Chris says:

      For (Missouri-Synod) Lutherans, the birth-control issue deals with the case of post-conception (i.e. abortive) methods. These are against the 5th Commandment (“You shall not murder.”). Of course, as infertile couples and those seeking abortions would point out, individuals only have the choice of NOT being a parent (by abstaining from intercourse).

  13. Tim says:

    Do the people that signed this document have any idea what our tax money is used for? We buy things every day for other people that likely compromise the religious convictions of America’s faithful, yet are unspoken about publically in religious circles. That’s not to say that the Affordable Care Act should not be criticized for the reasons they’ve listed. However, our focus should not be limited to issues that compromise our blissful ignorance.