And I’m sick and tired of morality being equated with sexuality.  Unless it’s about the violaton of another person’s body without their consent, there is no legitimate connection between morality and sex–period.  Sorry, social reactionaries–you are just plain in the wrong.

You’ve got to really admire pro-life employers who put their faith in the Good Lord above profits and who have the courage and determination to stand up for their Christian beliefs.

God Bless the pro-life employers who refuse to offer abortion(infanticide) coverage in their company health care policies!

At what point in a job interview should you ask a potential employer for their religious affiliation?

Another way for the ‘morals’, to make insurance company executives richer, at the cost of working people?
   Their lust for power is TOTALLY consuming them?

WOW!  If you have to change jobs much, you will be butchered up beyond recognition?
   Employees of Jewish MUST be circumcised?
   Employees of Muslims MUST have pork particles surgically removed?  Same for Jewish employers?
   Imagine working for a Satanist, and HAVING to be sacrificed?
   Oh, yes, in some way, they ALL will do that!

Who is my employer? The CEO, the president, the board… if I work for the USG is it the party in power? What happens if we become a pseudo-christian fascist state?

This is among the many problems solved by a single-payer/universal coverage system. 

In any country claiming to be civilized, basic health care should be a right of citizenship and not a benefit tinkered with by employers.

Unfortunately, one of the results of Obamacare will be to delay and make more difficult any possibility of achieving that in the lifetime of anyone reading this. 

As to your question, it’s silly. The government requires these things to be in an insurance plan, and it gives a religious exemption if the religion has an established and long-standing conscience objection to it. Only a few things fall into this category.

I heard the promo this morning.  Question asked – “Should your employers beliefs affect your healthcare options?” or something to that effect.  Dumb question, simple answer – YES.  These are benefits, not individual rights.  No employee nor employee group have the right to confiscate benefits, regardless of what the President thinks.  You don’t like the benefits?  Find another job or create your own.  And I am saying this from the perspective of an employee, not a business owner.

ALL those that want to claim ‘religious freedom’, or other religion-based reasons, use the Shaker religion model.  NO SEX, NO Children=NO Shakers?

So does the employee have a right not to perform certian duties on “moral” grounds?  For example can a jewish water / waitress refuse to serve pork to customers on “moral” grounds?

As I understand it, Obama’s plan requires all employees to have access to insurance that covers contraceptives, but does not require religious institutions to pay for that part of the insurance.  So it follows that people like you and I end up covering the contraceptives of those working for religious institutions that manage to opt out of that on moral grounds.

Will Indian Charities be forced by their non-hindu employees to serve them hamburgers?

Organized religion has been so privileged for so long in this country that they conflate being under the law like wveryone else with being persecuted.

So saying it’s against your morals will save you lots of money? I expect many employers and businesses would become very “moral”.

Even Roger Williams, a very influential Puritan leader of his day, wanted separation of church and state.  How does the Right keep arguing that our country’s founders that we based our law on Christian teaching and morals, when they clearly did not?

What a dumb topic.

employer supplied, or suplamented Healthcare coverage is a benefit, not a right.  Because of this they should be alble to include or not include anything they want. 

Since we are still a free country if the employer alters their benefit package in a way you don’t like, you can change jobs! 

As I suspected the so called libertarians can’t help themselves and seem to support this idea and it seems the right wingers who keep on yelling about government are now saying it’s all fine and well.

Oh and the provision in the new health care law was about a woman’s health care, which in case some did not notice also includes reproduction and other issues men do have to deal with. Obama is into making public health care issues better and the right wants to go back to the 19th century. In the case of Santorum, I dare say it’s the 14th century.  

U.S. Vet knows God so well that he knows for a fact what his intention is towards women. Sorry buddy but this thinly disguised  argument is all about you, a man, wanting to control women. It has nothing to do with some mythical man sitting in space telling us Earthlings what to do.

The Supreme Court has refused to overturn the laws requiring Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees in both cases that have come before it. Most recently in 2007, when there were 5 Catholic justices: Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts:

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of New York Law Requiring Insurers to Cover Contraceptiveshttp://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/us-supreme-court-denies-review-new-york-law-requiring-insurers-cover-contracept Supreme Court Denies Review of California Law Requiring Employers That Provide Prescription Drug Benefits to Include Contraceptive Coveragehttp://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/supreme-court-denies-review-california-law-requiring-employers-provide-prescrip 

Well, I guess this means that the economy is improving.

Back to focusing irrationally on women’s health and legislating their bodies based on the dominant religion’s beliefs instead of common sense. 

Will a woman have to prove that a miscarriage was natural or will every miscarriage presumptively carry the weight of a crime?

How about if the bishops and other religious persons in opposition to Obama’s plan let the insurance companies cover whatever is currently legal and let their followers exercise their own right to either participate or not, thus leaving God to judge if they deserve to enter heaven. These control freaks cannot legislate good Christianity. God left it up to all of us to make our choices to be a follower or not. He may have made it mandatory in order to inherit his kingdom,but not to live on his planet. It’s ironic to me that God is less of a control freak than these religious fanatics. If you don’t believe in contraception, childhood vaccines, or whatever, then work to change the laws, not to keep people from exercising their rights within the law.These people do not have a monopoly on Christianity and no one appointed them “the decider”.  

I realize that at its heart, this is an abortion / contraception issue but I have routinely worked at businesses that offered health insurance that low dollar capped certain types of coverages such as psychiatric services. 

When will this discussion stop looking like a big sausage fest?  I wasn’t the only one that noticed Issa’s  Congressional hearing was 99% men (men that aren’t allowed to have sex with women, or marry) and only men spoke. Jon Stewart raked them over the coals on it last night.  

I am remembering the herb that used to be used to cause abortions:  Pennyroyal. (I believe it’s also used as an insect repellent, applied topically.)

Since when does an organization have a conscience?�
Are we back to corporations being people? BS!

Some of these religious freaks refuse any medical treatment at all, for themselves or their kids, preferring to pray for a cure…

… How about the religious fanatics hoist that imperitive on the rest of the public as well??!!!

If religious groups go into the publi commercial arena they must live with the rules of that sector. No one says churches have to complly but businesses do. We Are a Secular Nation.

If the religious have their way this would become the rapests reproduction rights bill.

Should an employer be allowed to limit coverage to children born out of wedlock?  Should divorce terminate health coverage for families?  What are possible outcomes of coverage based on moral or religious beliefs?

Every Catholic woman (and man, too, for that matter) that’s ever use contraception should stop going to mass and let the church hierarchy see what it would do to their numbers.

Would it be a part of this rightwing thought regarding the “so called” right of conscience that employers shouldn’t have to hire folks that might not fit their moral or religious world view?  How about landlords not renting for the same reason?  So employers, landlords, or businesses should maybe not have to deal with or do business with folks who co-habitate, or if they are gay.  How about mormon groups not covering antismoking treatments?

What about Christian Scientist or Jehovah’s Witness employers?  Should they be able to not pay for *any* health insurance?

Neil

Link these all together – provide insurance that covers ALL or NONE:

Contraceptives

voluntary sterilization

Viagra and the like
In vitro fertilization
fertility treatments

I’m willing to bet that those opposed to insurance that covers the first two are in favor of providing the last 3.

Add one more – If the insurance doesn’t cover the first two, the company/organization that excluded them from that insurance is financially on the hook for all children of unintended pregnancy to the age of 18.

With regard to issues pertaining to human sexuality, a great many people would say that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic  Church has completely forfeited all credibility and any reasonable oprobriational agency.  It is quite remarkable that anyone is seriously listening to anything they are saying, and that we would even consider crafting social policy in response to their concerns.

Just because one is insured does not mean one is required to accept any treatment.  Why is this matter not a decision of the individual rather than the employer?  How does the employer become the decider?

If there were single payer insurance, then employers would not be in the position of the caller Robert who speaks of a 46-year-old employee who elected to carry a Down Syndrome child to term and the costs were $350,000 even pre-delivery, driving the employer out of business, I suppose.  Instead of making this a moral issue for an employer, make it a national issue.  Or do we favor culling the disabled, as Santorum puts it?  I don’t know.

No, what happens in practice is that a small business sees the insurance rates go up by a factor of ten so they let the employee go.

All about corporations, personhood and life.

It’s been said that corporations are individuals.  It’s been argued that a fetus has personhood
(a soul) from the moment of conception.

So, we could ask,�
does a corporation have a soul?

The life of a fetus (which has personhood) may be legally
terminated within the first three months of conception.  Is this true of a corporation (as it is also
a person)?

One  person cannot
legally deny right of life to another.�
Can a corporation (as a personhood) legally provide or deny personhood
to others?

More important yet, is there is intelligent life – or intelligent corporative
personhood –on earth?

Mike, at what point did you just give Franzanello the mic and mixing board?

I can’t remember the last time a partisan spent so much time flogging their schtick on this show.

Audition fail. The search for fact-based conservative guests continues.

Isn’t it
in fact immoral to deny medical coverage?

Some want
to claim the moral high ground by falsely claiming a moral “standard”
that denies medical coverage that in fact can save a life of a real living
person [the woman that is pregnant]

The “conscience
act” is in fact one of the most immoral pieces of legislation in a long
time and the spokesperson you have hosted has told lie after lie and finely
tuned misrepresentations all hour on your program… is that moral?

No one yet commented on the pro-bills lawyer saying that birth control wasn’t limited.  Of course it is, if it isn’t being paid for by insurance.  By default some lower wage workers won’t get it because they can’t afford it.  Come on, Moderator step up to the plate and don’t let articulate people say inaccurate things over and over.

The Right is trying to impose a Christian-based “Sharia law” on us all. If organizations accept federal money, they should not be able to impose policies based on Christian belief.

Why not a Jehova’s Witness employer choose not to buy HI that covers blood transfussions and organ transplants?  Why not a faith healer who employs people choose to forgoe HI altogether?  Where does it stop?

Should the government insist employers of faith follow certain secular guidelines?  Well, they do it all the time… church buildings need to meet code and safety standards (conscience not withstanding), church run soup kitchens need to pass health inspections (conscience not withstanding), they have to obey child labor laws, min wage, buy workman’s comp, etc… (again, conscience not withstanding).  This is just another labor law.

If they can’t do these things because of conscience, then they shouldn’t be playing in this space. 

Basically if this law gets passed, women should have sex ONLY if they are wealthy and can afford to pay for contraception, morning after pills, etc., and, if the pills should fail, an abortion.  If you are poor, you’re on your own.  Why is it no one talks about who is going to fund the raising of the child after it is born.  Come on pro-lifers, fork over about $200,000 to the new mom who did not want the child in the first place.  Also if insurance companies or employers pay for Viagra, then they should also pay for contraception and abortions.  The rich get rich–and stay rich since they can PLAN their family size, and the poor…  Eh, who cares about the poor!    

98% of Catholic women have been on birth control at some point in their lives. If the church has such a strong stance on contraceptives why don’t they practice what they preach? Just more of do as I say not as I do. The Catholic church should focus on the behavior of their own congregants and let the rest of the country dictate their own morals.

The “unintended” [?] consequences of the passage of the Blunt bill will be the decline of the health of women and particularly poor women.  What does the “affordable” in the Affordable Care act mean if not making available good health care to all, regardless of their income? It sounds benign: “It’s all about religious freedom.”  But when you look at what it actually will mean to huge numbers of women, the intent is clear — the control of women’s sexuality.  Santorum demonizes even good prenatal care in his “sinewy” statements.  What a calamity! 

There’s no need to worry about your employer’s morals.  If the President’s proposal to eliminate the tax deduction for employers who provide health insurance passes there won’t be any employer provided health insurance and therefore no moral conflict.

If there was Universal healthcare in the US like in Europe this would not be an issue. Those women who are against abortion or contraception would not have to use any of these services. End of story

We should get away from employer based healthcare.

Unlike Plan B, which is a progestin-based drug, ella is
– just like RU-486 – a selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM).�
This means that though indicated as “contraception,” ella works the
same way as RU-486, not Plan B.[1] By blocking
progesterone, a hormone necessary to build and maintain the uterine wall, ella and
RU-486 can kill an already-implanted human embryo. 

Put another way - ella can abort a pregnancy, no
matter whose definition of “pregnancy” is used.

When the FDA approved ella, it did not make any
assurance that it would not disrupt a pregnancy.  In fact, the FDA said
that ella may “affect” implantation.[2]  The FDA
chose different language when it approved Plan B, saying it may “prevent”
implantation but explicitly stating that once an embryo implanted, Plan B would
not terminate the pregnancy.[3]

Moreover, scientific studies demonstrate that ella not
only prevents implantation, but can harm an “established” pregnancy.  The
FDA’s prescribing instructions for ella cite animal studies
demonstrating high embryo-fetal loss.[4] In addition, the
European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the EU equivalent of the FDA, indicated that ella “is
embryotoxic at low doses, when given to rats and rabbits.”[5]

[1] The
mechanism of action of ulipristal in human ovarian and endometrial tissue is
identical to that of its parent compound mifepristone.”  Harrison &
Mitroka, Defining Reality: The Potential Role of Pharmacists in Assessing
the Impact of Progesterone Receptor Modulators and Misoprostol in Reproductive
Health, 45 Annals Pharmacotherapy 115 (Jan. 2011).

[2] ella Labeling
Information (Aug. 13, 2010), available athttp://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/022474s000lbl.pdf

[3] Plan
B Approved Labeling, available athttp://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2006/021045s011_Plan_B_PRNTLBL.pdf 

[4] See
ella Labeling Information supra note 2.

[5] European
Medicines Agency, Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use: CHMP Assessment Report
for Ellaone 16 (2009), available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/001027/WC500023673.pdf 

I didn’t hear the whole broadcast/conversation but was there any discussion about vasectomy.  Covered?  Not covered?  Moral? Against any religion?  Should it be /is it covered by employer provided health care?  

Why some people comparing Health Insurance to Car Insurance these people are so confuse than ever before.

First of all cars are not human beings and humans are not cars.

Why is it that Conservatives always bang on about the rights of individuals and rail against the subjugation of those individuals by the government and other organizations only when it coincides with their beliefs?  Then when there is an idea that they agree with they will side with the rights of an organization over the rights of the individual. Just because one is employed (not owned) by an organization with a particular viewpoint does not mean that the organization can deny healthcare based on their views not the individual’s.  Interestingly, it is mostly the rights of women that are usually on the chopping block.  Control, Control, Control.  All of the comments below parsing birth control, abortion, and after morning pills are infuriating.  If you don’t like abortion, birth control, etc then don’t have one, don’t use it…But don’t tell others they don’t have the right to do so. 

What if one has a moral objection to helping men fight erectile dysfunction – it’s not the natural state of things.

Why don’t we ban all erectile dysfunction medication, condoms, and vasectomies, and mandate that all men beginning at their 18th birthday pay a child support tax into a general pool to offset the cost of childcare?

I have significant issues with insurance companies not paying for contraceptives.

I am a woman and have a huge issue with others dictating what I can do with my body through economic manipulation.

Birth control pills are used for a number of ailments that are not related to birth control.�
�
It is much cheaper for tax payers to fund birth control rather than support all of the children who are born by women not able to acquire birth control.

I pay a premium for my health care insurance through my employer.  My employer also pays part of the premium.  Perhaps I should designate my contribution to be used for payment of birth control. 

It seems that every election year brings out a certain type of issue including birth control and abortion.

Women’s rights are being attacked and reversed…..a great sadness for me.  Are we reverting to the ways of years past when women were considered “property”? 

Until Tom Ashbrook returns to the air, I will not listen to your program. Mike Pesca does not know how to direct a conversation. Mike, learn something from Tom, don’t have ideologues on and allow them to spew their venom unchallenged.

One of Mr. Ashbrook’s best tactics is to cut off dogma by saying, “we get it.” Get it?

If you look back throughout history and even in today’s world, every time any religious group dictates government policy, women’s rights are diminished. Right now women have a legal right to contraceptives. Why should women who aren’t even Catholic have to abide by their extremest opinions?  

This conversation was disturbing in many ways. I feel as if the rights so many women have fought for are being forgotten. This is not a religious issue as a woman of child bearing age who wants to follow her church doctrine can do so, another woman who needs to take contraceptives for any reason can do so. This is a woman’s and her doctors prerogative and decision, not a priest or a politicians decision!!!

Hear Ye,Hear Ye,gather round lads and ladettes.Just got off the phone with a mate in Antwerp.Belgium finally has a govt.and it’s a socialist PM.Furthermore,he’s openly gay.To quote my man”How a socialist can introduce and perform drastic austerity measures,when it is exactly their legacy that has brought about the illness is a mystery to me”….
Now here’s the up to the minute skinny.Health ins. costs next to zip and Ralphy loves it.A week in the hospital is $300.00USD.While college used to be free all over Europe things are changing.It’s free in Belgium,but the Brits now charge 9000 pounds per annum.Here’s the rub.Tax rate on earnings of 100,000.00 are 48-55%.I pay 28% federal and 6% to Ma.That’s it for me,off to the gym.

Did not like the way Mike Pasca handled the interview. It seemed subtlely tilted toward the right. Those coming from the opposing point of view were more in number and were not always given rebuttal time after a caller called in. It would have been better to have one person in opposition. Have always felt that Tom managed to find presenters from both ends of the spectrum and always gives them equal opportunity. This didn’t happen today.

In my state, where there is a mandate (Massachusetts), you’re lucky to find a primary doctor, period.  If so, there’s a six-month wait for an appointment.  You’re back to the emergency room, or these new all-hours clinics.

It is SO engaging to hear people who know nothing about the topic argue the meanings of the US Constitution or the King James bible.  I just can’t frigging wait to tune in again tomorrow to hear yet more ignorant, self-absored dolts express their opinions.  hmm.  Maybe I’ll just find a good music channel.  Don’t bother commenting, I’m sure you’ll be happy.

Ella is NOT “an abortion-inducing drug,” as this woman from the anti-choice organization keeps saying. (Trying to brainwash listeners, maybe?)

I have a relative who’s a priest, and he claims EVERY birth control pill is “abortion-inducing.”

These bills set up a terrible system of privilege wherein people who CAN afford the basic care they want can get it, but people who rely on insurance will be at an incredible disadvantage. Well to do women will always have access to the care they need, but for the many women struggling during these tough economic times the price of contraception might be totally out of reach.
Also, our government has in the past recognized limitations to first amendment rights. For instance, one is not allowed to scream “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, because this is a public health risk. Another example, many politicians in the U.S. condemn female genital cutting, even if this practice is part of a religious practice. Sometimes we need to prioritize our health over first amendment rights. I would also like to point out that many women use birth control not as birth control, but to help alleviate other health problems, and that these women would be at risk because of the Catholic church’s current stance.
To me, this represents another example of how our government is focused more on institutions than on individual people. The bottom line is a large majority of Catholic women use birth control. The freedom of these individuals should not be undermined or inhibited because an institution does

I always wished my mother would have taken birth control or at least had an option within the Catholic church.  She gave birth to 15 children, all single births.  We had poverty living conditions, hand me downs, a charity case through the church.  All this because she believed in the faith and no birth control.  Well, we all learned from that, all 9 daughters took birth control in one form or another.

If the issue is government intervention into moral convictions, it seems that it has been going on for many years in an opposite way  in regards to Christian Scientists who have, I believe, been forced by courts to accept medical care for their very ill children. 

ATTENTION Mike Pesca: Fact check. Please note that your guest from the anti-abortion group got her facts wrong. The emergency contraceptive (EC) product she mentioned, named Ella, does not cause abortions. EC works the same as birth control pills, to PREVENT pregnancy. There are not studies showing EC is an abortion-inducing pill, contrary to her statement. There are many studies showing how they work to prevent pregnancy. Here is a fact sheet from ARHP, one of the major medical societies in the US, about the difference between medical abortion and emergency contraception:
http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Clinical-Fact-Sheets/Mifepristone-EC

Sincerely, Wayne C. Shields, president and CEO, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, wshields@arhp.org, 202-466-3825

I’m a seminary graduate, ordained minister, clinical social worker buy background and academician with a specialization in religious ethics and morals. I’m also an HIV positive individual covered under my denomination’s health insurance because of my current position as pastor of a congregation and director of a church related social services agency.

I understand the deeply held convictions that lead to these proposed bills. I also believe that these girls are dangerous because they set a precedent which may not even be intended by the billls’ authors.
As written these bills might allow my denomination or other religious organizations to to denycoverage to me and other employers to deny coverage for those with particular diseases,pre- existing conditions and birth defects
Healthcare is considered a basic human right under the UN Declaration on Human Rights and it has generally been accepted that we should not demonize particular conditions. The intended or unintended consequence of these bills will likely be that employers will find moral objection excuses not to cover more expensive conditions — perhaps with the claim that these conditions are evidence of curses from God or other such nonsense.

It could lead to a multitiered system of coverage at a further marginalization of those with disabilities or other health conditions. That said, I am not sure that religious organizations or others should be required to cover elective surgeries including abortions or to provide the coverage for comp deceptive devices or medications. I’m pro-choice but I believe that the issue of abortion or contraception should be addressed separately from other medical conditions, disabilities or diseases. Our clergy plan for example does not cover elective cosmetic surgery such as breast augmentation, etc. there is a distinction made between diseases, disabilities, medical conditions and elective procedures. It seems to me that contraceptive devices or medications, sterilizations, mastectomys and the like fall into this category . I would go further to say that these bill should orally apply to religious nonprofit organizations not to secular businesses regardless of the views of the owners

Mike Pesca, you are suppose to remain neutral and ask probing questions–including questions that challenge facts.  You didn’t do that during this show.  Your own views show through.

You know what, I’m morally opposed to fat people.  Gluttony is a sin according to the bible and I’m morally opposed to subsidising healthcare for a bunch of obese sinners!  There is a far more sick obese people in the United States than there women who have abortions.  But I don’t get to pick and choose who MY health insurance premiums cover and how.  And somehow, you don’t hear the Catholics screaming about the moral outrage of gluttony.
�
I’m morally opposed to families that have more than 2 children.  I think it’s unreasonable and it taxes our environment.  People who have more than 2 children should be taxed extra, for the extra burden they place on society.
�
I’m also opposed to Viagra and “male enhancement” drugs.  And I consider it an outrage and self serving when Congress and the Church constantly demonize birth control and abortion, and never consider making Viagra unavailable to men.  Hypocritcal old coots!
�
I am TOTALLY in favor of birth control and even abortion.  If people have religious beliefs, they are not forced to use birth control or have an abortion.  But to deny these options, is equal to denying a cancer patient treatment for cancer.  In my world, in order to have health insurance coverage for having a child, I have to have a special maternity rider in force for anywhere from 9 months to a year, at a cost of $900 or more per month for one nonsmoking female.  If I don’t have a maternity rider, well, having a child isn’t covered.  Now, I’m single and for those of you who suggest that I give a child up for adoption, forget it.  I work with chemicals on a daily basis, and I work on historical restoration projects, and I know I get exposed to lead.  Why would I want to risk bringing a disabled child into the world?  I don’t. I won’t. Ever.  Aside from that, having a child would bankrupt me.  So I don’t want to be preached at by a bunch of people who aren’t paying my deductible.
�
Aside from all that, our current rate of population growth requires that we add 186,000 jobs to the workforce every month just to keep up with kids coming into the job market.  If women were no longer allowed access to birth control, our population would grow…exponentially…like rabbits.  That means more garbage created, more emissions, more energy required, more jobs needed, more food needed, and more water shortages.  Worldwide famine anyone? 

I hope all the Pro Lifers win.  I hope they abolish birth control and abortion.  Their grandkids will be around to starve for their shortsightedness.  Mine won’t.

It is ridiculous to have this conversation as if “all sides are equal.”  

There is vast inequality in our society, deep ignorance of women’s health and history, and unrepresentative governance (by race, class, and gender).  

I would like to see On Point take a leveling approach by providing much needed information and context before such a conversation. 

There was not even an exploration of what is meant by “freedom of religion” or a factual presentation of the legislation.  

In the end, I fear it did more harm than good.

�
“But the beast with lamblike horns “spake as a dragon. And he
exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the
earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose
deadly wound was healed; … saying to them that dwell on the earth,
that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” Revelation 13:11-14.” {GC 441.2}

“The lamblike horns and dragon voice of the symbol point to a
striking contradiction between the professions and the practice of the
nation thus represented. The “speaking” of the nation is the action of
its legislative and judicial authorities. By such action it will give
the lie to those liberal and peaceful principles which it has put forth
as the foundation of its policy. The prediction that it will speak “as a
dragon” and exercise “all the power of the first beast” plainly
foretells a development of the spirit of intolerance and persecution
that was manifested by the nations represented by the dragon and the
leopardlike beast. And the statement that the beast with two horns
“causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first
beast” indicates that the authority of this nation is to be exercised in
enforcing some observance which shall be an act of homage to the
papacy.” {GC 442.1}

“Such action would be directly contrary to the principles
of this government, to the genius of its free institutions, to the
direct and solemn avowals of the Declaration of Independence, and to the
Constitution. The founders of the nation
wisely sought to guard against the employment of secular power on the
part of the church, with its inevitable result—intolerance and
persecution. The Constitution provides
that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and that “no
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office
or public trust under the United States.” Only in flagrant violation of
these safeguards to the nation’s liberty, can any religious observance
be enforced by civil authority. But the inconsistency of such action is
no greater than is represented in the symbol. It is the beast with
lamblike horns—in profession pure, gentle, and harmless—that speaks as a
dragon.” {GC 442.2}