Colorado Christian University Sues Federal Government Over Health Care

LAKEWOOD, Colo. (CBS4) – Colorado Christian University in Lakewood is taking the federal government to court. The school says it’s being coerced into violating its deeply-held religious beliefs.

The beliefs involve strong opposition to abortion.

There are some 4,000 students and 500 employees associated with the university. The school offers a group health plan to its employees and students.

Under a federal mandate the plan must offer contraceptives. That leaves the school’s administration, led by former U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong, facing an important ethical question.

“(It’s) whether or not people, or in our case universities, who have seriously held moral convictions against abortion, should nonetheless be required to pay for it and support it, and endorse it, in effect,” Armstrong said.

The departments of Health and Human Services and Labor and Treasury have been named in the lawsuit charging, “A deliberate attack by the government on the religious beliefs of the Colorado Christian and millions of other Americans.”

Beverly C. Ailts is the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado and feels the university’s lawsuit is misleading.

“No one is compelling anyone to take action against their religious beliefs,” Ailts said. “They are making contraception more accessible and affordable to those who want to take contraception.”

“I supposed that if we lose then one option that we will look at … is to simply stop offering health insurance coverage to our employees,” Armstrong said.

Right now the university’s stance against abortion is so strong that employees must sign a pledge not to take part in it.

More from Investigates
  • davidwamsley

    If the opposition to the mandate to pay for others contraceptives and abortions is not affirmed by the courts up to the SCOTUS. Then Obama care is over.
    The law was writtian in such a way that if one provision is unconsitutional, the whole bill is invalid and unconsitutional.
    Obama care will support late term abortion with our taxes.
    I wish the University every success in their opposition to this obseane legislation.

    • Pilot.Dave

      Although I do not believe any MAN should any say in what a WOMAN does with her body, I agree even more strongly in what the University is arguing – freedom of religion is a founding concept of America,

      Also, the writer including the B.S. of Beverly C. Ailts simply shows a liberal bias by CBS…

      • Shea

        I agree we should have no right to regulate what a woman does with her body.

        You must also agree a woman has no right to decide what to do with someone else’s body.

        Therefore if you believe life begins at conception, it is consistent to say a woman has no right to kill a constitutionally protected person simply because they have not yet been born.

        Not all pro-life positions are religious… this one is one of two possible libertarian approaches (both opposites I might add).

      • Hugh Askew

        STLDan, who thinks his freedoms extend to making me pay for his mistakes, needs to get a clue.

        Shut up?
        So much for freedom of speech when speech opposes your irreligious self-righteousness, eh?

      • STLDan

        No one is infrining on any religious rights here. Get a clue. Are they being told how or not to worship? Are there churches being shut down? They have ZERO chance of winning this rediculous law suit. If you dont agree with abortion, dont get one. Apart from that, shut the hell up!

    • constitutionalAtty

      you are correct as there is no severability clause included in this catastrophic legislation. Obama didn’t want congress, or the courts to be able to remove portions of the bill. Joe below, hopefully those “facts” help. It is easily researched.

    • Joe

      Would love to see your facts on where you think that if one provision is unCon that the entire legislation is. So far, even the one (and only) state court that ruled some provisions UnCon, gave the legislation itself a stay so parts could be activated.

      • USArtguy

        It’s called a “severability clause”, which provides that if any part of a law is found unconstitutional, the rest would remain intact. The administration didn’t include one.

        Just Google “severability clause Obamacare”.

        And take a look at this man’s highly expert opinion

      • Jack Chaffin

        Joe, the law omitted the “severability” clause, usually included. The clause usually states that if any part of the law is invalidated, the reminder of the law is still in force. The Democrats were so interested in ramming this through that they neglected to add this. So yes, many legal experts believe that laws without such clauses are negated if any part is judged unconstitutional.

      • Toneyuki

        Jack, it wasn’t neglect. They had to leave it out. If they had included it, then the CBO score wouldn’t have been under 1 Trillion.

      • Shea

        There is no severability clause.

        If the courts rule the law to be severable, millions of contracts from mortgages to employment to unions will have their contracts invalidated because the court will have ruled every law to be severable.

        Obamacare is not severable. If one sentence is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.

        Obamacare is a violation of the 10th amendment and the interstate commerce clause (i.e. the federal government does not have the authority to regulate LACK OF commerce).

        If it is not struck down by SCOTUS, we will see it repealed in ’13.

      • Krp

        The 11th circuit declared the mandate unconstitutional but left the law intact. The PLANIIFFS then appealed to the Supreme Court the severability of the mandate.

        The Administration wanted to drag its feet so that the law would be implemented before ti could be heard by SCOTUS, but the plaintiffs appealed NOT the mandate but its severability.

      • Scott Lennox

        it’s NOT in the Constitution, the provision is in the bill

    • bob

      like the one rick santorum’s wife had?

    • David

      You actually have that backwards.
      The law is written in a way to survive the loss of any one part of it.

      It’s deficit spending is also capped by law–if you change any part in a way that adds to the deficit, you must offset it with cuts elsewhere.

    • Brian T. Robinson

      There is one problem with your theory — the US Supreme Court has already ruled that you do not need a severance clause to save the constitutional parts of a statute if one part runs afoul of the Constitution. Meaning if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, then it would be stricken and the remainder of the statute would be in place.

      • Shea

        If this is the case, Obamacare is not a law.

        The way in which the law was passed was for budget neutral items. A stricter vote is needed for budgetary items and striking the mandate DE-FUNDS the program, requiring it be passed as a law.

        If the court rules the mandate to be severable, the law becomes a non-law, and even the administration has said it would be ‘unworkable.’

      • Krp

        What is being appealed is the severablility. THe 11th Circuit declared the mandate severable. What was appealed was the severablility.

        So if the law IS severalble. then what you have is a legislation that was passed under false pretenses.
        The mandate was part of the funding of the law and this was supposed to lower the deficit (yeah right). Now with the funding mechanism gone, you have a budget busting bill,

      • vangrungy

        “the US Supreme Court has already ruled that you do not need a severance clause to save the constitutional parts of a statute if one part runs afoul of the Constitution. Meaning if the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, then it would be stricken and the remainder of the statute would be in place.”

        Are Supreme Judges actually Kings?

    • Linann M Singh

      If you do not like abortions…..tie you d**k in a knot.

  • amy

    Good for them! We need more like this organization to stand up and refuse to be bullied into dulling down our morality.

    • Jess

      I believe in the power of a choice. If a woman choses to engage in sexual activies then she must face the consequences. Abortion is not a choice. The choice has already been made when someone considers aborting a fetus.

    • Jamie

      We need more people to stand up the self righteous religious nuts like you. If you don’t like abortion don’t have one. Don’t you dare tell me what to do with my own body.

      • HisAmazingGrace


        We’re going to assume you didn’t understand what Amy was saying. As an American taxpayer and a Christian who holds the belief that abortion is the killing of a child, we should NOT be made to pay (through taxes) for someone else’s abortion.

        Easy to understand?

      • Californian7

        I’m amazed you don’t see yourself as a “religious nut”. Think of “religion” as your world view – yours is either humanism or leftism….In my dealings with leftists, when they accuse you of something – 9.995 times out of 10 they are doing the very same thing…….it is my opinion that the anger in your post gives you away……

      • Justice

        Agree with Brian – AMY. I know people like you want to believe it is ALL about you; but it is not.

      • Tim


        If you want to have an abortion, then don’t work for Colorado Christian University and expect to get benefits for having one! Don’t YOU dare tell CCU how to compensate their own employees!!!

      • Brian

        Do whatever the hell you want with your body; but the body inside of you is entitled to liberty.

      • Doogie Hauser


        You are taxed. You have representation. Religious freedom does not mean that you are necessarily exempt from US law.

        Easy to understand?

  • Shari

    By forcing individuals or groups to use private money to fund something that is against their beliefs is not only an assault on religious freedom, it is an assault on basic liberty.

    • slinky

      Are any of my tax dollars going to support this university? If so, it is an assault on my religious freedom and on my basic liberty.

      • Shea

        I know CCU does not take federal funds. They are independent and free.

      • Tim


        If federal funds do go to CCU that is obviously irrelevant. The school’s policy on employee health care pre-dates Obamacare. Had their policy been contrary to federal law, they would have lost such federal funding long ago. It is not as though Obama’s Department of Education is going to suddenly realize that they have been improperly sending funds to a school that violates federal law simply because that school is now suing the Federal government!

    • trutherator

      Forcing anybody to do anything with their own money is an assault on liberty.

  • pyramid

    Do you suppose Jesus approved of all of Caesar’s policies when He said, “Render unto Caesar . . .”? How is this different?

    We need to be ready to answer the hard questions.

    • Mikey De

      Jesus did’nt have a vote on what Ceasar demandes. The holy land was an occupied territory. I thought Liberals were soooo smart. You don’t even kinow your facts and yet you run your mouth. Go read something other than Rolling Stone!

    • constitutionalAtty

      Jesus lived under the rule of a King, we live in a Republic. If you don’t know that much you are a but a sheep….baaaaaaaa baaaaaaa

    • LaVonte d'Ashawn Jackson IV


      1. Don’t pretend to know the Bible or what Jesus said. You just look stupid.
      2. The question is only difficult for you stupid democrats.
      3. If you don’t know how your analogy is different, my explanation will go over your head.


    • Inverse Pyramid

      Jesus was answering a question about paying taxes.

      Do people understand context anymore?

      So the angel was disobeying God when he told Joseph — at God’s direction — to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt? By your misinterpretation Joseph should have disobeyed the angel and rendered Jesus to be slaughtered by Herod.

      Hard questions?


      • Jack Chaffin

        Joe, that is the whole question. The commerce clause has never been used to COMPEL commerce. So don’t pretend that this is old stuff.

      • Joe

        @Shepherd, so wait “You should always read scripture in context.”. We can read scripture in context, but interpreting the Constitution “in context” is fraudulent?!? What a nice double standard you zealots have come up with! The commerce clause allows the legislation, plain language, and it’s been upheld by the SC in every conceivable instance over the last 15 years. Precedent is a B when you dislike legal legislation.

      • pyramid


        Slow down partner. I am on your side. My point is there will be many retorts to this effort, and we as Christians need to be prepared to answer in a loving but wise way.

        Mike had a good answer. Bear in mind the average young person today has no idea who Joseph was let alone why he would go to Egypt.

        PS I accidentally “Reported” your post – sorry.

    • mike

      Jesus certainly did not approve of all of Caesar’s policies. The application of his statement is for us to be obedient to the laws of the land. However, in Jesus’ day, the people of Judea could not vote Caesar out of office, nor were they protected by a Constitution. In order to be “salt and light” we must be involved in what our government is doing. This includes being informed, bringing suit to see that the Constitution is upheld, voting, and so on.

      • MorganGray

        t0mas, yes, the Bible says we are to obey civil authority. But, what if civil authority sets itself up against the Law of God?
        Did Daniel obey the civil authority? Did Shadrach, Meshach and Obenego? Did the early Christians, who practiced their faith in defiance of Roman tyranny?
        Did our founding fathers obey civil authority?
        Did Frederick Douglass obey civil authority, or Sojourner Truth?
        How about Rosa Parks?
        We are to obey civil authority right up to the point where it contravenes God’s Authority. The founders did so, and therefore their hands were clean when they started to disobey civil authority.
        It is the same for us today. We obey the civil authority, we try to work through the proper legal channels, like bringing suit in court, UNITL the civil authority becomes so oppressive that it becomes “their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security”.
        And for the record, we are nowhere near that point – yet.

      • USArtguy

        Uh, t0mas, the United States of America shouldn’t exist then… We’d still be servants of the crown.

      • Lee

        “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

      • Shepherd

        @t0mas “We The People”

        You should always read scripture in context. Now go drink some water.

      • Shepherd

        We like Mike!

      • t0mas

        *Cough* Romans 13:1&2 *Cough*
        Excuse me… oh, here I go again.
        *Cough* John 19:11 *Cough*

        Who allows people into office? Who has the power over Government? Who works ALL THINGS to His glory?

      • pyramid

        Thanks Mike.

    • Brian Carter

      “Render unto Caesar . .” If you finish the sentence, you have your answer. “… and render unto God, that which is Gods”

      In other words, don’t surrender to the government your natural, or God given rights.

    • Vic

      Jesus said ‘render…’ not SURRENDER unto….’

  • Kettering1

    Americans should be like this University–Grow a backbone and oppose the unconstitutionality of this draconian Obamacare. Our tax-dollars are used to murder innocent babies so indirectly we have blood on our hands. AMERICA SPEAK UP, SPEAK LOUD, SPEAK OFTEN.

    • BLM

      You are a little mistaken- our tax dollars are used very directly to kill babies around the world. I know firsthand that in Cambodia right now U.S. tax dollar funded abortions are available on a walk in basis and performed in hours in urban areas. Sickening. If an average person breaks a bone in that country however it takes days or weeks for them to see a doctor. I’m have no doubt you will find similar U.S. involvement in many other countries.

      • kelpiejethro

        I’ve never waited more than a few hours to get an xray for a broken bone in this country. Once Obamacare kicks in and everyone is forced into the government pool, hours will turn to days, then weeks and eventually months as you try and get approval from a beaurocrat for an xray.

      • constitutionalAtty

        wow, u think we support that? A fool and his thought are soon parted…foolish man.

  • Jeff Maschler


  • Beck

    Can we call it what it is…infanticide or child sacrifice..abortion is a medical term.

    • ablecynic

      It is truly child sacrifice. The child in the womb is sacrificed for the convenience of the mother and father (and sometimes the family.) Planned Parenthood and the other abortion providers will tell a woman with a child in her womb that she will be happier, healthier, and better — AND it will be better for the child, if she has an abortion. It never is. We get 2 or 3 women every month who have come in years after having an abortion to request psychiatric care to help with the guilt.

    • Melanie

      How about calling it what it really is? MURDER.

  • NCMike

    I agree. It’s about time that Americans started standing up for their right. The morally reprehensible relativism that pervades our culture opens the door to totalitarianism, and the loss of liberty. Wake up America. Grow up, and stand up for your children and grandchildren. We must stop the destruction of our culture, our values, and our liberty. If not now, when?

    • Maria

      “Totalitarianism” is how Bush and the GOP went to war, by lying and fear mongering. Federal government is there to protect our “freedoms” especially from extremist that include Christian extremist too. It is the parents’ job to discipline their kids and if u feel so strongly about having Christian principals and values, stop preaching to the choir and practice living it, like Mother Theresa. The federal government is not imposing their health care on anyone. Listen I have a handicap child private insurance doesn’t cover didly and thanks to the affordable health care act that was passed by Obama, that what ever is not covered by “Private insurance”, Medicare pays the cost, which by the way, comes from “our own taxes”.

      • workingstiffdad

        Sorry, Maria. Read your Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates record ….find out what federal governemnt is “there for! I contribute to charities to help be “my brother’s keeper”. I DO NOT have an obligation to give my income or property to the Government to hand over to you without my permission! Your ponzi scheme utopia is bound to crash and burn. Enjoy your Medicare today, becasue it will be stopped or it will implode under its (and your) weight on the productive members of American Ciitizen society. However, your nearest private charity hospital (Catholic, Presbysterian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) run by the Christians you bach will be there for you and your ilk.

    • just a sailor

      It is no surprise that Obamacare runs at odds with Christian beliefs.
      The head of the government is a Muslim sympathizer. The Muslims get a pass while Christins are foced to go against their religion.
      Remember this regime was the follower of a preacher that had no problem useing the Lords name in vain as he codemed the country.
      At the least we need a President that follows a religous leader that has no problem saying God Bless America.
      May God be with the university

      • Maria

        You do not know a thing about Christianity. I guess wall street and big oil are your Gods

    • TXMatt

      I very much agree. Well said. If we don’t stand up for our morals, who will?

  • DeVan

    Abortion was deemed legal by the Supreme Court based on a right to privacy in the Constitution. But the ObamaCide law mandates that private medical records be given to the govt! So either we have privacy or we don’t. Cant’ have it both ways. Either the govt. can meddle in our private medical affairs in which case abortion is NOT supported by the Constitution OR the right to privacy prevails and the ObamaCide law is un-Constitutional. Check mate. Strange that I have yet to hear of anyone challenge ObamaCide based on the right to privacy……?

    • joe

      It’s because the right to privacy has no relation to the legislation. If you actually read the bill (as with most bills) it’s tied to a constitutional prong to make the legislation valid. In this case it’s the commerce clause being challenged and over the last 15+ years going back all the way to the late 1700’s it’s supported legislation such as “obamacare”. No one is making the argument you think should be made because it’s a bad one.

      -Licensed Attorney

      • Luke

        In no case, has someone been forced to buy a product against their will, i.e. purchase adequate coverage. This idea is as yet untested under the commerce clause of the constitution. Nothing you can say right now changes that fact.

        As far as why no one is making the argument, it’s not necessarily that it’s a bad one. Rather, people are often afraid of wading into the unknown. Such a court battle will be long and drawn out, and with no precedent on which to base your case, it would be risky. People are attacking the angles that have clear precedents that would indicate Obamacare as unconstitutional before they attempt avenues with no precedent to back it up.

      • DeVan

        I beg to differ. The right to privacy is at the heart of the matter – along with freedom of religion. I also agree that the individual mandate is not supported by the Commerce Clause, but if it is I suggest Congress require every American to purchase a gun!

      • Jon Weiss

        Actually, under the laws in place at the time of its writing, the 2nd Amendment, along with the “Provide for the Common Defense” clause found in the Preamble and again in Article I of the Constitution, requires every able bodies male from 16 to 60 to own a gun as a member of the “Militia”.

        Modern anti gun activists will argue that the creation of the National Guard revokes the idea of a state militia, except that the National Guard has been (in violation of the very precept of the Militia) used in fighting foreign wars. This is an action that was never intended for the militia. From 1775 to 1917 this retention of the National Guard within the borders of the U.S. remained intact. It was only in the “foreign entanglements”, which Washington and Jefferson both warned against, that the illegal use of the National Guard became common practice, but such use is still illegal. For those who are too dense to comprehend the technical aspects of the point, suffice it to say that there is a reason it is called the “National GUARD” and not the “National OFFENSIVE FORCE”. In fact the “militia” was never intended to be used outside the borders of the state, let alone the nation. But the overbearing Federal Government, (another thing which the Founding Fathers cautioned against), simply usurped the power of the states to meet its own whims of the day.

      • constitutionalAtty

        All i can say joe…find a new field of expertise if that’s the best you can do. I suspect you are a first year student studying the constitution and arguing with other 18 year old students about this. Keep it up you are the kind of future Lawyer that is fun to practice against.

  • Mojo

    Wow, talk about twisting reality and crying wolf. There’s a slight difference between contraception and abortion. You do realize your tax dollars go to weapons that kill human beings. Remember that one of the Commandments? Oh right, you only apply it to things convenient to your hatred of Democrats and Obama. You guys are frauds and hypocrites, and filled with hate. Go ahead, try to take apart the only real health care reform of the last few decades, because obviously your Jesus can’t stand the idea of universal health care, especially for the poor.

    • MorganGray

      Mojo… people like you really make me fear for the future.

      Your assertion that there is a difference between contraception and abortion is at its root, incorrect. If your are talking about *preventing conception* you are correct. Condoms or diaphragms do that *PREVENT* conception.
      But, what most people mean is “birth control medication”. These do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation of an already conceived baby. In effect, they cause miscarriage before implantation, and therefore are abortion inducing drugs.
      I’m sorry if that bursts your pro-death bubble.

      Why do we need to reform healthcare in the first place? It’s broken.
      Who broke it? People like you, the lazy taker class who want everything for free.

      Yes, our tax dollars go to fund weapons which defend your right to get on pages like this one and misquote Scripture. Don’t like being defended by our military? Feel free to leave. I’ll even pay for your one-way ticket to Iran, or Venezuela, or Red China, or the Sudan. You can try to exercise your free speech rights there if you like.

      The word in Exodus 20:13 is “ratsach” (Strong’s #H7523) it means, to murder, premeditated, the act of homicide.

      We as Christians are to care for the “widow and the orphan” – those who cannot care for themselves, not the lazy – those who *will not* care for themselves.

      Try again.

    • Joe

      Here’s an interesting scenario for the zealots. Christ is in the modern day middle east, there’s an Ak-47 at his feet, and an extremist 100 feet away walking to a detonator that conceivably would kill 50 million people if it’s activated. Do you think he picks the gun up and shoots the extremist, or for that matter does anything to stop the person? Expand the situation further, let’s say it was a biological weapon that would be released and take down 90% of the Earth’s population? I think in both situations scripture would dictate that the individual would probably release the destruction on the world without any interference from the almighty. The only conclusion is that, it’s hypocritical to mix your political and religious ideologies, for the sole fact that it’s impossible to rectify one with the other. If anyone knows of a Judeo-Christian denomination that can integrate fully with a major political platform of any party, please share.

      • Jack Chaffin

        Joe, if you think that Jesus Christ would need an AK-47 to stop your fictional terrorist, you don’t know who Jesus Christ is! Silly example. Typical straw man.

      • constitutionalAtty

        rectify? don’t you mean reconcile…first use a dictionary if you want to sound knowledgeable, second quit the salacious arguments…they are meaningless Joe and you miss your chance to be thought intelligent by opening your mouth.

    • constitutionalAtty

      We as Christians reserve the right to apply it…whereas you who are not Christians quit quoting what you obviously do not believe…you have no standing to use the Word. Also, even if there were no clauses for contraception or any of the other things that the govt wants to supply to us I would still not want this misnamed idiotic national healthcare!!!! I’ve lived where I was subjected to this before and it sucked…baaaaa baaaaaa. sheep and slaves all.

    • Obamacare is wrong

      Doesn’t matter. ObamaCare is forcing a religious organization to offer something they feel is against their beliefs. End of story. It’s wrong. Therefore, ObamaCare, as it’s written, is wrong.

      • Concerned Citizen

        You’re correct, it’s wrong. Obama excluded Muslims and Amish people from this healthcare and is forcing everyone else to participate. To me that is discriminating against me because I should have a free choice to opt out of Obamacare like the Muslims and Amish people just to make things fair.

    • WAZ

      Mojerk – the constitution compels government to protect American citizens. It is one of the very few things that government can do. Part of that protection is the the creation of, and ability to use, weapons.
      Your arguement is baseless, and typical of the left. Please don’t label our desire to excercise individual rights as”hatred”
      And please don’t try to tell us about “our” Jesus…we know – and you have no standing to lecture.
      Keep telling yourself that Healthcare will be free…Hope and Change right?….While you are at it – name the other nine Commandments…..tic….tic…tic….thought so.

    • Wade Smith

      The law required abortion services be included in the insurance offered. Abortion the willing killing of an innocent helpless human being. The commandment you are looking for is Commandment 6: You shall not murder.Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17.

    • Will

      double wow to you, Weapons that “Defend” your right to even have a country to complain about your health care!! Obama care was passed as a Mandate and since its been questioned they themselves have called it a “tax” If thats the case the Bill before it was a Law originated from the Senate. Hum according to the Constitution all Tax proposals must come from the House. So procedurally its wrong which in its own should disqualify it. btw if we need this so bad why do we still have medicad/medicare then?

    • Reader

      Read that commandment in context and you might be surprised with your own statement. Why do you think it is written that god smiled upon David when he slew the ammorites? God does not say as has been paraphrased by so many “Thou Shalt Not Kill” your own bible says quite clearly the commandment was “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. Killing in war is not murder and neither is killing in defense of ones own life. Weapons themselves are not the problem but their just application and use. Now for the actual topic at hand your statement is not related and will be disregarded as the fluff it is.

    • armyman62

      Mojo, …
      The original text of the “commandment” you refer to was “Thou shall not commit murder” that is a little different than killing in self defense, for example or while at war under legal orders of your command.

      • nc

        just because you are commanded by a legal or superior order to kill does not justify it. ask the nazis about that one. i do however agree with your general idea that there is a difference between killing and murder but you might be more careful about how you try and illuminate that difference.

  • phillysmart

    Socialism doesn’t work it makes skaves out of people …resist at all costs

  • GerryC

    Growing up, I was always told that without good health nothing else mattered. Why would anyone want to turn our “health” over to the government? They ruin everything they touch. USPS, Mediicare, Social Security, and every other “SYSTEM”

    Our health is the last thing we have. Gerry

    • joe

      They created everything they touched, USPS, Medicare, and SS. Stop acting like it was private enterprise then the government took over.

      • Jack Chaffin

        The difference s that a government that can give you everything you want, can take everything you have. Government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Government is not trustworthy. Government simply cannot make all the decisions that private persons make in their lives.

        In other words, Joe, if you want to be RULED, this is not the country to expect it. Go someplace else where the citizens are not sovereign. We are Americans, and we will not be ruled. Your regime is about to go down.

      • constitutionalAtty

        True Joe, the implemented those services and they all are utter failures. thanks for pointing that out. Problem no is they aren’t satisfied with ruining what they built with their own hands and they want to ruin the good that was in fact developed by private industry. Once again…you should study to be quiet and do your own business…to quote what a very wise person once said. Emphasis on quiet….shhhhhh

  • Brodave

    Keep up the good fight.

    Do everything possible to keep the progressive liberal Democrats out of our lives, businesses and educational institutions.

    Stop this madness.

    Vote a straight GOP ticket in Nov 2012.

  • Stuart Smedley

    “The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.” ~ George Washington


  • M

    Contraception is not abortion… Not even close. It’s one thing to be against abortion (if that’s what you believe), it’s another to be against life saving medication for women who face painful reproductive disorders.

    • MorganGray

      You’re right. True contraception – the prevention of conception is not abortion.
      But, what most people mean when they are asking to have their contraceptives paid for by tax dollars is birth control pills, which prevent the implantation of an already conceived baby, which is the early termination of a pregnancy, which is abortion.

      Please deposit another quarter and try again.

  • Karen

    ‘Contraception is not abortion… Not even close. It’s one thing to be against abortion (if that’s what you believe), it’s another to be against life saving medication for women who face painful reproductive disorders.

    Contraception CAN sometimes be an abortion. Depends what the contraceptive is. Sometimes they are abortifacients. That bit isn’t relevant though. Even if all contraceptives weren’t such–like, NO private institution should be mandated what they HAVE to pay for. Why in Hades should it be ‘standard’ as part of a health care package? Why does a 60 year old woman need to pay for that? If people want to buy condoms on their own or other birth control, they can have at it without everyone else being forced to pick up what should be their dime. I happen to not think there’s anything wrong with a glass of wine at meal time. HOWEVER, I understand why the tax code doesn’t allow deductions for same on a government expense account. i.e. many would find it offensive (if not immoral) for the government to reimburse for same. This is no different, and actually drives the cost of health care up for everyone. People want health care for the BIG ticket items — unless, of course, you are a democrat socialist hack, then you want everyone else to pay for you to play around – in this case life itself.

  • Joe Geddis

    We have one King in the USA, and that is the Constitution–It is the ultimate ruler of our land. As Christians, we are told to “honor the king”. Obamacare does the exact opposite–it tears down the our rights. We Christians should stand strong for the “king”. Bravo to CCU!

  • J. Lee

    What is won by the oppression of these people’s beliefs? If a government can force them to do something like this, what unpalatable thing might it serve you in the future? Why wouldn’t we rather let those who wish to opt out, do so? Using the force of law in a case like this is a disgrace, and a dangerous precedent. Given that this government may do this, we are no longer privy to using the term “Land of the Free”.

  • Concerned Citizen

    Obama claimed that in this country people get to practice freedon of religion with no restraints, but yet under the obamacare we can’t opt out from his healthcare plan or we will be penalized, is that completely against what he said? I would think it is a personal attack against Christians, because Muslims and Amish are not subjected to Obamacare.
    America doesn’t need a dictator.

    • Jon Weiss

      Very true America has never needed a dictator, but sadly 32% of registered voters went to the polls in 2008 and elected one.

  • Just-us

    The constitution is a contract with King George and only pertains to the 13 colony states, not people. The City of London, DC, and the Vatican make up the 3 city empire and we are a crown colony/ plantation of slaves while they remain Sovereign. The US is a corporation operating in a foreign district with its own rule of law known as Lex Fori. That means the ruling class set up federal courts to criminalize the people of your state(domestic) not within the district of columbia inc.(foreign) Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security /and/ The TRUTH About COURT ROOMS! STAY OUT! <<google and read these two.

  • Jon Weiss

    Obamacare has never been Constitutional, even the basic grounds on which it was passed through Congress was a lie.

    Pelosi repeatedly told us that the “Commerce clause” allowed Obamacare to become law, yet the Commerce clause only allows Congress to “regulate” commerce, it does not grant Congress dictatorial powers to demand that we participate in Commerce. Obamacare is little more than another of Obama’s many dictatorial end runs around the law to impose his will on the people of this country, directly contrary to the will of those people.

  • Steven Brungard

    This University and other christian businesses want religious privilege, not religious freedom. They want exemption for non religious activity, like the provision of health care and health insurance. The law exempts religious activity like a religion business and its employess doing religious work. It does not exempt and should not exempt non religious work. Exempting non religious work would violate the constitution.

  • TexasForever

    Good for them certainly more than the Catholics are doing.
    U.S. Catholics Bishops love ObamaCare because it gives healthcare to ILEGAL ALIENS. The Catholic Church LOVES Illegal aliens!

  • ssquared

    Think how much better off the country would be if Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napalitano, Eric Holder and Frank Marshal Davis Jr. aka Barack Obama had been aborted.

  • Brian

    It is not your or anyone elses right to tell a women what she has to do with her own body. If she decides to have an abortion and there is a God he will deal with it and it not your right according to scripture JUDGE NOT LEST YOU BE JUDGED. It amazes me how many so called Christians deny the words of the Christ. By the way if you are such great Christians can you get fired or are you denied employment if you ever got a divorce or married a divorced women THE CHRIST is very clear about how he feels about this read the bible yourself. Get off your high horse, can I object if an insurance company covers a smoker, an alcoholic or denys coverage because someone forgets to wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmit. Access to insurance is not a relligious issue and your personal beliefs correct or incorrect cannot be interjected because you feel you have the right to dictate your religous belief on others. This country was founded on the right of people to belleive as they wish and NOBODY had a right to interject their religious beliefs on annother. Remember our country was founded by people fleeing religious persicusion by one group of Christians forcing they beliefs on other Christians.

    • DM

      where ever you get your theology, you need a refund, it certainly is not Christian. It totally is not only my right but also obligation to say whether a baby should be murdered whether it is inside it’s mother or not has nothing to do with it. The prohibition against murder trumps any of your so called “right to do whatever with my body” arguments. Deny the words of Christ? Outrageous! There could hardly be more of a denial that what you are doing in promoting murder, or maybe you thought that was loving your neighbor as yourself? Your next door neighbor – as close as it could be and much smaller and weaker than you so you murder it or think others should have the right to do so? Jesus said to judge righteous judgement and the context of what you quote was about judging unrighteous judgement. Judge is to discern and not necessarily to condemn at all.

blog comments powered by Disqus
News Updates & Notifications

Listen Live

AM/FM Stations

Featured Shows & Multimedia