The Latest Obamacare Overreach
Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.
Of course, Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.
Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?
In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.
So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.
But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.
Of course, many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.
The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.
Posted by vivek on 02/14/12 06:57 AM
Of course this is all meant to rend the fabric o life/society etc. The more I've dug into the Obamamama mania, the more I see the RED hand and frankly the more I know that if this un-folding plan works, it's not going to be fun to be a normal citizen, Anywhere, soon enough, because we all know that crap goes global in an instant.
And then the sheer touchiness of this topic itself. is it a life? isn't it? The truth behind planned parenthood, the true fight behind Roe-Vs. Wade... this is not a uni-polar question of Catholic beliefs by any stretch. It questions the core of who we are by question who controls the sexual process and it's results.
Click to view link
PS: Con-Dom is a recent word. And like all con words, a baaaad one.
1706, traditionally named for a British physician during reign of Charles II (a story traceable to 1709), but there is no evidence for that. Also spelled condam, quondam, which suggests it may be from It. guantone, from guanto "a glove." A word omitted in the original OED (c.1890) and not used openly in the U.S. and not advertised in mass media until November 1986 speech by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on AIDS prevention.
Posted by rossbcan on 02/14/12 07:09 AM
"The Law X guarantee of Y liberty"
... is not a perk granted by providers of "manna from our deluded rulers", something to be "rented" from the legal "profession".
... it IS a historical acknowlegement of defeat for statists (wannabe central controllers, slavers) that "cross this line" and, "we, the people" by our inherent freedoms based on "equal right to life" can and will defend ourselves and thoroughly smite all who oppose by our individual summing to collective defense.
All of history is but a tit for tat offense / defensive reaction, war between slavers and the free with the fates of peace and civilization hanging in the balance.
Civilizations rise with the honest and productive (those who produce more than they consume) in control of their OWN lives and affairs. Civilizations fall to conflict amd disorder with the criminal and unproductive (those who consume more than they produce) in control of the lives and affairs of OTHERS:
Click to view link
We Are Already Free
Whining to authority to give you freedom is believing they have the power to control you. It is a natural right (laws of reality) to be free. We can do (choose) whatever we want to do. The only choice of others is the choice they make in response. We can be punished for our choices, but no one can prevent them unless we are incarcerated, mis-educated or crippled by fear of consequences.
Survival EQUALS ability to adapt to environment EQUALS ability to choose correctly EQUALS freedom:
Click to view link
... hopefully, this particular assault will be sufficient to overcome the faux "divide and conquor" opinion that the interests of the objective and religious are somehow "at odds", rather than fighting over the faux and unanswerable without evidence "does god exist" question. God may (or may not) exist, but, natural law relating action to consequences does exist and has very sharp teeth to bite deniars.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/14/12 07:16 AM
"Even Paul Krugman Recognizes Ron Paul Got Screwed in the Maine Caucuses"
Click to view link
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/14/12 08:53 AM
By the way:
HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY Y'ALL !
Click to view link
Posted by DwightJohnson on 02/14/12 09:44 AM
You have three couples: two men, two women, and a man and a women. Only one of these couples is able to create, by natural means, a new human being. Don't try to tell me all three couples are the same. Only a person with a severely compromised understanding of their own human nature would think they are the same.
As for the Obama "compromise", to think there is any real difference between the employer paying for the coverage and the insurer providing it "free" illustrates once more that either Obama is economically-challenged or just plain evil.
Posted by chad2 on 02/14/12 11:07 AM
God Bless you Ron! All the blame can't be put on Obama. The people voted for him and they got what they asked for, perversion. Let us hope America is like the Protigal Son who returns to his father after finding himself with the swine.
Posted by rossbcan on 02/14/12 11:23 AM
"Don't try to tell me all three couples are the same."
no, very different. The couple capable of procreation poses the risk of creating competition for the resources alleged to belong to those whom have opened Pandora's Box by claiming to determine "who gets what" is a matter of THEIR opinion as opposed to "those who contribute to civilization by earning / creating it"
Just a matter of perspective. You believe that the ability to "create life" is special and needs to be protected. Others consider this to be to their detriment.
My answer to those who claim there are "too many of us" is: You first and, forcefully push your opinion and, I will assist in making it so.
Posted by kenn on 02/14/12 12:52 PM
Wonder? And this assumes most of the Church's employees are Catholic...
If all Catholics are true to their 'belief' then what would the Church have to fear?
No offense to Catholics or any other religion but there seems to be quite a few believers that don't seem to follow their religions dogma or for example,,,entrust their children to public schools that treats their beliefs with scorn. (No bibles etc) or Religious schools accepting Federal funds and the restrictions that go with them.
Kinda like having your cake and eat it too...
Posted by DwightJohnson on 02/14/12 01:27 PM
Red beacon, well put. I find it amusing that the ideas of those who claim there are "too many of us" are, in fact, self-correcting. They tend to abort and contracept their kind out of existence.
Posted by DwightJohnson on 02/14/12 01:32 PM
Kenn, you are largely correct about the employees, but this isn't about them. It is about the employers attempting to both provide a benefit and do so according to THEIR conscience. Many companies provide a menu of health "insurance" options, but they are always chosen by the employers, since they pay some if not all of the "premiums". (I am using quotes because what is called "health insurance" is not insurance by any proper understanding of the term.)
Posted by zbrain75 on 02/14/12 02:10 PM
I don't see this so much as a religious issue as it is a constitutional one. Because of the high cost of health care, many people wanted a "public option" offered by the government. Well the insurance industry couldn't have something like that cutting into their profits so they used their control over "our Government" to eliminate the public option and substitute mandatory health insurance, thus assuring them of additional profits. To me this is an unconstitutional legislated mandate to buy a specific product whether you want it or not. The legislated product that is required to be purchased contains some religious and morally objectional features to some who are forced to purchase it. But the basic problem remains in the fact that the Government (representing the insurance industry) is using a power that it does not have. To put it another way, I do not have the power to force my neighbor to buy health insurance so how can I give that power to the government.
Posted by rossbcan on 02/14/12 02:59 PM
"To put it another way, I do not have the power to force my neighbor to buy health insurance so how can I give that power to the government."
No, but you do have the power to make your neighbour's life miserable should they not comply with your whims. Do it personally and, hopefully, the law will support you neighbor's "right to be left alone" unless, of course, there is a "cut" in it, for the law.
It is the "power to make miserable and, to destroy" that states wield.
The Nazi's opined: The Jews and others WE deem as social undesirables need a "final solution", then, Utopia will be at hand. The executive (public servants) were terrified to dissent, because of the SS.
Current Pretext: We must help "X", because of "unfair disadvantages" (unstated fact: which implies hurting and stealing from those we consider unfairly advantaged). The executive (public servants) are terrified to dissent, because of excessive salaries and perks, far in excess of what is achievable by honest labor in private economy. To risk losing this is a terrifying survival threat, of the same order as SS methodology.
So, you see, same Nazi actions, different pretexts, different methodolology to prevent our public servants from dissenting. What they (and judges) don't know is that once total control achieved, they are redundant, as are those decreed "disadvantaged".
We know them by what they do, always. Actions and consequences do not lie. Only people do.
Posted by jkluttz on 02/14/12 03:38 PM
Many religions have used the government to force their particular visions on the rest of us. Now that the tables have turned they don't like it a bit. Maybe there is justice after all.
Posted by nithsdale on 02/14/12 03:48 PM
Ron Paul sets out the original American view re religion but we are not dealing with that singlar view any more.
We left American ideals in the dust over a hundred years ago, when we followed Teddy Roosevelt and empire building, even while we had not explored our own wilderness. Since then, we have been like every European nation, bent on extending Royal favor to all who support us. The Royals always interferred with religion when it suited their purpose and so does Imperial Washington now.
Ron Paul is wrong on one point. Most of our European brothers in The West do believe that employers do owe free meals to their workers and so we fell heir to that when we bought the entire entitlement socialist program. All religious institutions in the West are used to having to give food as well as care, and businesses do provide hot meals to their employees in most of the West. Some European nations have cut back on that mandate and fast foods, sandwiches are now allowed. The only reasom American business has not adopted the free meal program is that themployee does not get paid for lunch time and so legally he must buy his own, however if you stay late, you often get a free dinner. Just fineline legalisms but they are there and important!
Posted by zbrain75 on 02/14/12 03:56 PM
Exactly! Well stated. As you stated "executive (public servants)" and judges will be redundant. I expect Congress will be part of that redundancy. Some of the recent executive moves have bypassed the authority of Congress anyway so it may not be long before the power of the Congress is reduced to a point of triviality. After that, whether Congress still exists may be a moot point.
Posted by DwightMann on 02/14/12 03:57 PM
The government should not be in the business of murdering the innocents. If a person wants or needs an abortion or some other birth control, they should have to pay for it, not the people that are against it.
It is an individual moral decision and the best way to make that decision is to pay for it yourself. . .
Posted by rossbcan on 02/14/12 04:13 PM
"Maybe there is justice after all.
Nope. It's all about control. Stated idealogy, goals, beliefs are mere pretexts, excuses to be 'master predator'. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Don't know 'bout you, but does it really matter who wields the lash. It still stings and, it still punishes you for the original sin of 'lack of subservience' (existance without tribute).
The fallicy is in believing that those you unleash to deal with your enemies will stop there and return to 'leashed' once done. They cannot ever be sated. They are predators and all they do is prey and, rationalize for an audience of gullible fools, while neccessary until enough terror is achieved that 'no excuses neccessary'.
Fail to protect the peaceful 'right to life and live according to belief' of the religious and, lose the same when your way of life is 'ìn the way', as was:
'Peace, Justice and the American Way'
RIP minus P plus Conflict
Posted by zbrain75 on 02/14/12 04:13 PM
While the first part of your statement may be true, I must disagree with the second part. I don't think that makes it justice. It is more a matter of power whether those who wield the power are religious or not. Two wrongs don't make a right but the game is played to usurp power over others. It seems that, at least in high up Government circles, doing what is fair and just and caring about those who your actions affect is forgotten. Whatever happened to compassion?
Posted by Frank on 02/14/12 04:36 PM
I believe it's time for peaceful civil disobedience to Unconstitutional laws.
A time may come, and might soon be at hand, that disobedience to Unconstitutional laws will turn violent.
I hope that will not occur, but if brainwashed, dumbed-down American voters can't stop electing/re-electing Statists to office, the trend in this once great USA will continue rapidly downhill to an ever bigger & out-of-control welfare/warfare/police state. At some point, enough is enough!
Posted by Edgar Friendly on 02/14/12 04:54 PM
I agree with Frank, below. Americans with this level of awareness that is purported on Daily Bell need to begin resistance to the unconstitutional laws put into play this past decade; and those prior... I believe the tipping point to outright physical action against the statists/globalists/communists in government will be hyperinflation to the point the 'masses' will not be able to afford thier beer, cigarrettes and fast food, when the SSI recipients , et al the dependancy class gets cut off or face discomfort; they will become problematic; martial law will start in the cities; the fascists will first contend with the liberal-wishy/washy quasi-hippies of OWS cloth; these will be easy targets for militarized police departments across america to pacify and round up into FEMA camps. Good; because when this happens, the 'silent majority' will coelese; start planning resisance and countermeasures to the burgeoning threat of POLICE STATE.
aS AN UNDEREMPLOYED, divorced, middle aged guy with alot of firearms and lifelong marksmenship skills; I regret I have but one life to dedicate to the US constitution and to wage war upon those intent on destroying the formerly great republic of the United States.
Killing Alinskyites, socialists, etc will be an orgiastic release from the binding rules of civilization; once those destroying America step over the line into soviet style, POL POT /Stalinesque oppresion and violence against the American people.
A death warrant will be made for PEOPLE llike Goerge Soros, and the entire Rothchilds clan. No prisioners!!! Viva American revolution part 2.