-
Obamacare’s Medical Mercenaries
April 13, 2012 | 58 comments
-
Obama’s Broken Promise to Wounded Warriors
March 27, 2012 | 32 comments
-
Obama Sells Out Science for Campaign Cash
March 21, 2012 | 21 comments
-
Netanyahu’s Purim Gift to Obama
March 9, 2012 | 91 comments
-
Republicans Rock the Airwaves
February 24, 2012 | 56 comments
A Further Perspective
The Contraception Edict: An Assault on Liberty
We’re seeing Obamacare’s future and how it works.
The Obama administration’s decision to force religious institutions to cover contraception is a case study on how Obamacare and its implementation have politicized medical decisions. Here’s how it works. First, health care choices are overruled if they do not flow from the state and do not require taking rights from one group to give to another in the name of fairness. Next, the same administrative apparatus engages in politicking and deal making to appease groups angered by the original decision.
The contraception mandate was issued unilaterally and without regard to the deep feeling and anger it would generate. Now the administration is rhetorically backpedaling and seeking to find a way to respond to the quickly spreading attacks on the action. Claims to the contrary, this was and is not about assuring all women have access to contraception. It was about eliminating the choices and overruling the preferences of one group to enforce the “rights” of another.
Now everyone is focusing on “accommodating” concerns that Obamacare would force employers and organizations to cover birth control. And in doing so, by turning an individual health choice into a government edict we must obey subject to Obamacare’s equivalent of plenary indulgences — a waiver — we move one step away from liberty and closer to centralized control. That’s why one idea for “accommodating” will never be implemented: ‘Allowing’ religious organizations and employers not to offer contraception as part of health insurance as long as they give employees who want it a choice of plans that do. That’s because giving people choices of health plans also comes at the expense of enforcing everyone’s “right” to medical care.
The contraception edict is but one of a series of Obamacare judgments that have angered millions of Americans because of its one size fits all nature. From mammograms, to coverage requirements, to end of life planning, the administration’s actions rankle not because they are completely dumb (they usually are) but because they violate people’s sense that such decisions should not be made by government and should not be based on meeting a political or policy goal.
The contraception decision is more disturbing than these previous enactments of Obamacare because freedom of religion is a deeply cherished freedom that allows us the liberty to establish a relationship with God, family, and lives in ways that government can never replace. As a result, more than any other action, the restriction of Catholic and other religious-sponsored organizations or employers to exercise choice reflects the belief that freedom of religion come at the expense of “reproductive rights of women” underscores how Obamacare regulators will restrict choice and access in the future. In this warped world, birth control medicines and devices are mandated and essential but not Avastin or genetic testing or treatments for cancer or rare diseases. Remember how the administration tried to make end of life planning a requirement? The inner logic of Obamacare is that life-saving therapies and choice inhibit the growth of the welfare state and the appropriate distribution of resources. It is the underlying rationale of the Independent Payment Advisory Board and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which focus on “social decisions” rather than individual benefit, decisions that produce winners and losers based on a political calculus.
The action also exposes — at the beginning of this presidential election season — the fundamental view of liberty enshrined in Obamacare. Thomas Jefferson wrote “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” Another political leader noted, “Liberty is precious. That is why it must be rationed.” That was Lenin. You tell me which worldview shapes the contraception edict.
About the Author
Robert M. Goldberg is vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and founder of Hands Off My H ealth, a grass roots health care empowerment network. His is new book, Tabloid Medicine: How the Internet is Being Used To Hijack Medical Science For Fear and Profit, was published last month by Kaplan.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (159) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert M. Goldberg
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/09/the-contraception-edict-an-ass
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
spike59| 2.9.12 @ 6:11AM
"The contraception mandate was issued unilaterally and without regard to the deep feeling and anger it would generate"
=========================
that would assume that the ObaMao regime had no idea that there would be an outcry against their edicts...on the contrary, they knew
they simply do not care
Jack in Wi.| 2.9.12 @ 7:16AM
The trouble is that the Republicans are hopelessly splintered. It was stupid of Obama to do this, in an election year. But he wants to contrast himself from the Republicans. The Republican elites want to run someone who loves this kind of action. They hate religious people and are disgusted that they need them in order to win elections.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.9.12 @ 9:00AM
Does anyone remember the Movie: The Warriors?
There was a Movie in the 70's, called: The Warriors. It was about all of the Leaders of all of the Gangs in New York City, coming together in a Park, one night, to discuss a Strategy, whereby, all of the Rival Gangs would Come Together to achieve POWER.
Their Leader (a Charismatic figure who was practiced in the art of Public Speaking) reminded them that they Outnumbered their Opposition - The Cops. He assured them that, if they could COUNT, they would see for themselves, that the other side could not beat them. (Cool Movie)
What is that Gang Leader doing today? What is he thinking, when he does the things that he's been doing, lately?
Let's Recap, so to speak, what the one we've been waiting for, has been up to.
He has ANNOUNCED that he will not even try for the WHITE Middle Class. The WHITE working Class Families. (I guess he DID hear what Jeremiah was Preaching, all those years.)
He seems to go to a lot of Schools, these days, to promote his version of Orwell's: 1984. He seems to have learned the lessons of all those who came before him. The Hitler Youth. The Young Pioneers. And whatever Mao, Pol Pot, and the other Fellow Travelers, called their Youth Indoctrination Groups. Or, as Officer Malone informs Elliott Ness, in the Untouchables Movie: "If you're afraid to get a Rotten Apple? Don't get it from the Barrel. Get it off the Tree."
He has decided to go Scorched Earth, this time around. He has decided that; "Yes We Can", is not as operatable as it once was. So, he's chosen to go with: "Yes We Can, Just Not With You White Devils (that's what my FRIEND - Louis Farrakhan calls you) this Time Around".
He has SUED any American State that is in Conflict with his Plan to FLOOD THIS COUNTRY with Illegal Democrat Voters. He spends more time with the leaders of La Raza, than he does with the Leaders of Congress.
He divides us by Race, Creed, Colour, Wealth, and now by our Religious Teachings vs. those who Spread their Legs at the drop of a Hat, and would rather BEND OVER a Chair, than Sit on one.
He has chosen the Lowest Common Denominator among us. He has chosen the Takers, over the Makers. The Wicked, over the Righteous.
He has decided that he would rather RULE IN HELL, than SERVE IN HEAVEN.
This not an "Assault on Liberty". It's an Assault on LIFE itself, as we know it. You already know this.
If you can Count.
Brian Mc| 2.9.12 @ 9:39AM
And, let's not even bring up the PURSUIT of happiness. That has been circumvented by guaranteeing your happiness through the destruction of the pursuit that we dolts find so enviable. Man, are we in for a rough ride.
Louis Jenkins| 2.9.12 @ 11:43AM
And if Obama wins this time around he will show the world that he doesn't need the white middle class vote. Scary ain't it?
Bill| 2.9.12 @ 12:24PM
This is one of the many harmful results of abandoning the American focus on liberty and re-focusing America on equality.
You would think that the French and Bolshevik Revolutions would provide a compelling rationale for government staying as far as possible away from equality and securing the blessings of liberty, but apparently not.
Delta Zelda| 2.9.12 @ 5:54PM
Too many Americans refuse to even think about politics.
“If I know about political things I’ll just worry about it, and I don’t want to worry,” a friend said to me. I said “You’d better start worrying, because you will have to live with the consequences,” I replied.
Add to that the number of Americans who are only interested in their game, race or reality show, their six-pack, and having their sexual wants/needs met, and you pretty much describe a lot of those eligible to vote.
Fortunately, a great number of them don’t bother to vote, and I am very thankful for that.
Some conservatives have said they will sit out the election if Romney is the Repub nominee. I hope they reconsider. Romney does not hate the United States and its people; Obama does. If the Repubs run a rattlesnake or a blue tick hound, I will vote for either. If it’s Romney, I will hold my nose and vote with a 10-foot pencil.
It would be great if the Repubs nominated someone we WANTED to elect instead of the lesser of two evils.
Jobe| 2.9.12 @ 1:01PM
Mr. Pennell, your post is succinct, accurate to the tiniest atom, and frightening. That a malevolent, self serving, arrogant, bigot could so easily achieve the highest position in the nation is a truly nauseating fact. Add to this the probablilty of his re-election, and you have a scenario for the destruction of all that many of us hold dear.
I find it especially difficult to work toward defeating him without becoming as jaded, vicious, and soulless as he is.
I have been explaining to my English classes that to analyze what happened in the past, one must immerse one's self in the milieu that surrounded that event. How will the election of obama be explained to our grandchildren? What will we be able to say to justify our massive failure to protect the nation that had been our pride and strength for several hundred years?
Dmac | 2.9.12 @ 4:01PM
Jobe,
Obama didn't rise to power on his own. He had plenty of help. Mainly from the Republican party itsef. Thats right, you heard it here and you know its true. The Republicans didn't want Reagan, they wanted Bush. As soon as Reagan was out of office Bush dumped the American people for his wealthy friends and helped them ship our jobs overseas on a massive scale. Bush didn't lead America and the middle class as Reagan did. Republicans, other than Reagan, and dare I say it, Newt Gingrich have shown no leadership. None what-so-ever! We survived Clinton both Bill and Hillary, byt that should have warned us all of what the next Democratic President would be like. We saw and heard the vile and hatred of the liberals when Bush II took office. He may have been an okay guy to give a respone for 9-11 but what the hell else did he do? He gave us a precription plan that cost us billions for who? The wealthiest group of retirees to ever inhabit the earth. Who'd that help? The phamacutical industry. Then he sat there and opened up the treasury and watched his friends and the friends of his family loot the treasury. Next, the Republicans give us John F'ing McCain and we all new he would lose. Now they're trying to shove Romney down our throats when we let them know 4 yrs ago we didn't want him.
The Republican Guard knows what its doing. They are splitting the nation and taking all the riches. They wll leave us, the working class, the un-connected and those who are honest holding the bag(debt). No, Obama didn't do this by himself, the Republican Party held the damn door open for this monster.
The only reason this crap is happening is beacuse we are so stupid as to beleive we can have a revolution at the ballot box. Well, when do we quit being stupid and take advantage of our rights and do what the hell our forefathers expted us to do. Just why the hell do we all think they wrote the Constitution they way they did. They knew the day would come when we would have to defend(as it is now), or take back(as it will be very soon) our liberty. Its both parties, they are the enemy of liberty, they are hinderance to the "Pursuit of Happiness". What will it take for us to at least have 10 million man march on Washington? Something, becasue just sitting here at our computer isn't going to stop them. Its going to take many of us being a bit inconvenienced to save this country. Our forefathers did it for us, now just why the hell aren't we doing it for our kids and grandkids? Are we that gutless? Are we really that cowardly? Bad things happen when good men do nothing.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 12:10PM
This issue isn't about religious freedom. It's about religious institutions wanting to compete in providing healthcare of millions of employed Americans. Most of these Americans have no choice with respect to healthcare provided by their employers regardless of their beliefs. Therefore, they are trapped and cannot obtain the contraceptive healthcare they desire and are rightly entitled to through employment.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......their.html
Caroline| 2.9.12 @ 1:29PM
First of all, employees aren't rightfully entitled to healthcare from their employer, and anyone who wants contraception can walk into a Planned Parenthood Clinic and obtain it. They can also walk into a physicians office and obtain it. An employer isn't obligated to give anyone healthcare. You've been brainwashed into thinking that. You need to take responsibility for yourself and quit thinking it's the Federal Governments job to do it for you. They have no business legally to get involved in this. They will be stopped, we are going to see to it.
The wants of someone to obtain birth control, don't overrule the 1st amendment under the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 2:21PM
Thank you for responding to my blog Caroline. I do respect your opinion. But as Americans, we just feel differently about this issue. I also feel a bit arrogant because of my gender. Regardless, I believe that employers who do provide healthcare should not force their employees to conform to religious institutions who refuse to offer protection to women concerning birth control regardless of whether that employee can pay for that service on their own. Cost, for many, is also an issue in addition to availability--especially in conservative areas of America. Incidentally, The First Amendment's establishment clause forbids the government from endorsing any religion (yes this includes Christianity). It applies to the free exercise of religion not participation (by any religion) in the healthcare industry.This is a righteous fight especially in an election year. The battle lines are drawn. Democracy will win regardless of threats and innuendos by political demagoguery or threats of extra-constitutional action.
TrueBlue | 2.9.12 @ 2:36PM
The employer is not forcing their employee to conform to their religious beliefs. The employee CHOSE to work for that organization.
It works both ways, the employee does NOT have a right to force their employer to break with their religious beliefs to fulfill the WANT of the employee.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 2:45PM
If this is told to an employee in advance of their employment, I agree. Nice to compromise, isn't it?
Dmac | 2.9.12 @ 4:08PM
Lyneuss,
There are hundreds, thousands of places where you can get free contraceptives. Planned Parenthood, some junior high and many high schools, free clinics, county and state run facilities. This isn't really about contraceptive at all. Its about control. Its about forcing religions to turn on their own beleifs so the church will look weak. Obama and his HHS secratary know what they're doing. Don't think for one single second that Obama didn't have a playbook when he came to power. He's a communist and he's using the communist minifesto.
TrueBlue | 2.9.12 @ 4:31PM
If you don't know who you're working for why are you applying for a job there? Nice to have personal responsibility, isn't it?
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 5:48PM
There is hypocrisy to the Catholic position. That is, the Catholic religion is willing to accept government monies, but they want to provide health care by their own rules. One should wonder what other social issues Catholics want to control and force on the American people using government money. If this issue involved Catholics privately funding their healthcare institutions, there would be no justification for government interference.
John Navratil| 2.9.12 @ 6:11PM
Lyneuss Fields.
I think you will find the Catholic institutions will close their doors as they havc, on occasion, already. The Catholics operate a substantial number of the hospitals in this country. The employ all comers and treat all comers. Would you prefer to see all the non-Catholic employees and patients put on the curb?
This is not hypocrisy. These organizations have never offered these services, yet people seek them for employment and for treatment. Does it occur to you that they might like the deal as it is? It's not the institution which is changing, it is the regulatory environment. When the government walks into your house and begin making changes you don't like, I hope you will be so sanguine. Think it won't happen? Look at your low-flow toilet, the 100W bulb the 10% ethanol diluted gasoline (soon to be 15%), needing a driver's license to buy Sudafed and the list goes on and on. It will not end here.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 6:37PM
If you don't want Catholic hospitals regulated by Government, don't accept "The People's" money!
Todd S| 2.9.12 @ 7:23PM
False argument, it is impossible to run a hospital today without the governments involvement because they mandate it. So your argument is the government can just do whatever they please because they force their involvement 1st amendment be damned? Your argument is patently dishonest and you know it. I also see you are an anti-Mormon and your blog is filled with hate and lies. No one cares about your stupid blog anyways from what I see, rather pathetic.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 8:03PM
No hospital in America is required by law to accept government money. They're called private institutions you bonehead--you.
As for Mormonism, their abuse of American people throughout 19th and 20th century America (e.g., Illinois, Missouri and Utah) is well documented in their Comprehensive History and Journal of Discourses. These works were written by their own historians naming the time and places of murder, rape, polygamy and extortion.
Finally, can't you zealots--this means you bonehead--find anything but invective and unsupported statements for your equally unsupported positions? You do Conservatives a serious f'n disservice by your comments on this thread.
Todd S| 2.9.12 @ 9:45PM
Bigot much? I say so. Lets make a comparison of Mormonism against your beloved Marxism shall we? Estimates are 100 million killed in the name of Marx in the 20th century, how does that stack up against Mormonism? Your blog is pathetic and I can see no one is much interested in it, I probably doubled your views for the day. Go pimp your hate elsewhere
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 10:05PM
Marx was not a citizen of The United States and therefore, not subject to The Constitution or State law. Mormons who perpetrated their atrocities against American citizens were; therefore, your comparison is fallacious.
Again, your accusations (I'm Marxian and a hater) are without merit and false. Finally, your arrogance and disinformation (not facts) about issues concerning Americans does not reflect well upon The Conservative Movement.
Todd S| 2.9.12 @ 10:51PM
Your own blog states your political affiliation quite clearly, firmly on the Marxist left when you are not displaying your bigotry against Mormons. I will say it again, your blog is pathetic.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 11:02PM
Again, that is false. Nowhere in my blogs do I state that I am a Marxist. Invest in an education and study economic systems in macroeconomics 101. Utah State University (my alma mater) has a fine program.
Todd S| 2.10.12 @ 10:45AM
You are a bigtime collectivist which is Marxism Lyneuss, I looked through your stupid blog. A very confused one at that and your understanding of economics borders on insanity. As I said, no one cares about your crazy blog. Btw, I have an MBA from Utah State University where I graduated in Accounting with a minor in Finance so I am well ahead of you there. It is a fine university though it didn't seem to help you any but crackpots will be crackpots.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.10.12 @ 7:26PM
Marx was a Communist, and he coauthored a manifesto with his Comrade Frederic Engels. Although one could argue collectivism is Communism, Communism also requires a totalitarian government, and this would be unconstitutional in America.
But the point I want to stress bonehead is this: evidence of a free market exists when resources (land, labor, technology, tools of production) move in the direction of products and services demanded and away from those that are not. Therefore, within the constraints of America's Constitution, both competitive competition and collective cooperation can exist under a free market system and your accusation that I am a Marxist is consequently false.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......ative.html
TrueBlue | 2.9.12 @ 6:43PM
Lyneuss, the thing is, they weren't really given a choice. The government didn't say, "In order to receive government funds you must abide by these rules," they said, "You will abide by these rules." Nearly every institution in America receives government funds, whether people realize it or not. The difference is if the government pulled all that funding the Catholic organizations would, for the most part, remain afterwards.
Remove government funding and overregulation requiring this or that on health insurance and you'll see healthcare costs fall. The general welfare clause in the Preamble has been abused for decades. Someone on The Hill needs to point out that it is everything after that that specifies what the federal government can and cannot do in regards to that general welfare.
This mandate won't just affect Catholic organizations by the way, it will affect every single person who buys insurance (and if the individual mandate doesn't cause Obamacare to be overturned that'll be EVERYONE). That means that regardless of whether you want it, use it, or not you will still be forced to have insurance that provides the "benefits" of birth control, abortions, and abortificients, etc. Inch by inch they will gain more control over what you HAVE to do, as they have been doing since the late 1800s.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 10:49PM
Personally, as a United States veteran I get single-payer healthcare through The VA. So when you say everyone will be affected by The Individual Mandate, certainly that won't include millions of veterans.
Patrick| 2.10.12 @ 2:41AM
Catholic Charities accepted money as a provider for a service that the government felt was needed. If the government didn't feel that they needed a subcontractor, then they shouldn't have offered the money.
Lyneuss proves to be just yet another leftist trying to make anything stick.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.10.12 @ 8:39PM
For government to search out particular religions, or any religion to deliver services to the needy, would violate the separation of church and state. Therefore Patrick, your assertion is backward (pun intended) in that churches petition Government to offer their services to the needy provided they follow regulations. But churches want to play by their own rules regardless of government regulations.
Finally, your assertion that I'm leftist is false and again like your twin "Todd S" without merit. Consequently, both of you boneheads give a black eye to The Conservative Movement.
Jill Johnson| 2.11.12 @ 5:01PM
What do you mean, they "accept government monies?" You make it sound like they are accepting some kind of handout, But my understanding is that they accept money as payment for services rendered.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.11.12 @ 6:47PM
Look Jill, in all fairness it's the Catholic Church’s mission to help the needy and disenfranchised, and in doing this they take federal money. It could be fairly argued they do better than Government, but that is not the issue. The issue is, if they take federal money, they must obey federal law.
Conservative Bob| 2.9.12 @ 6:39PM
Lyneuss
Exactly what are the more conservative areas of the country where birth control is not available? I live in the deep south Alabama to be precise and we are pretty damn conservative and you can go to any pharmacy and get anything you want. I live way out in the country and anything anyone wants is available. Access is a canard. FREE is the key word here, the emporer decreess it so as Mr Holder so aptly put it 'his people' can have unlimited free access. This is only about control, bith control is available to all who want it down to about the age of 12 or 13....
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 7:02PM
All throughout Utah (Salt Lake excluded), Idaho and Wyoming just to name a few areas of the country.
Todd S| 2.9.12 @ 9:52PM
Another pathetic lie. There is no rule against using birth control for Mormons in marriage and everyone is free to live as they please in Utah. I doubt very much you have to worry about it anyways
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 10:14PM
Once again, my argument wasn't about Mormon rules concerning birth control, it was about availability throughout small, rural areas throughout The Intermountain West. Get a grip on your emotions!
Todd S| 2.9.12 @ 10:55PM
So you are going to tell me there is no birth control available anywhere in Idaho or Wyoming? That is just plain idiotic but your blog explains your lack of intelligence.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.10.12 @ 6:27PM
Thanks for the advertising, bonehead!
idalily| 2.10.12 @ 3:16PM
Lyneuss, you are full of crap. I live in Idaho. We have plenty of birth control available, and some of it is free to those who can't afford to pay for it.
Lyneuss Fields | 2.10.12 @ 6:25PM
What do you do, crap bricks Lily? Sure enough you can in Twin Falls, Pocatello, Boise and larger cities. But you can't in the rural communities. And in Idaho, that can mean over a hundred miles.
Jill Johnson| 2.11.12 @ 5:13PM
Well, la di da .. in such areas you also cannot get lots of things. If you think that everywhere has to have everything everyone else has, and everyone else has to pay for it -- bowling alleys, Starbucks, cellphone service, cable service, MRI, Level 1 trauma centers -- well, evidently you do. But most of us do not. Contraception is not only not a vital necessity, it's also pretty cheaply obtained. Condoms, or -- wait for it -- abstinence is perfectly reasonable. We do not want to pay for your lifestyle choices.
And if you really are talking about an area that cannot get contraceptives, say Ella for a rape victim, because it is too remote, do you really think having it provided free by insurance will get it to her any faster?
Lyneuss Fields | 2.11.12 @ 7:11PM
Listen lady, as I stated to Caroline above, it’s quite arrogant for me to debate women on this issue. But anyway, your comparison of luxury items (e.g., cable TV, Starbucks, bowling etc.) to necessities necessary for women's health is absurd and fallacious. And do you really believe people are going to abstain from sex because they can't afford contraception; what planet do you live on?
Finally, yes I do think contraceptives can be delivered to anyone's door, in any rural community and free of charge if they are on an insurance plan.
TrueBlue | 2.9.12 @ 2:34PM
They already have a choice. They can go with the employer supplied health plan (which may not include certain things due to religious reasons) or they can go out and buy their own insurance plan through another company. Sure it'll cost more, but they have the choice.
It is NOT the employers responsibility to make sure that his health plan covers everything his employees want, but what they NEED. Birth control is not a need, it is a want. Abortion is not a need, it is a want. Both of those can be easily controlled through the employees own actions without further burdening society, his employer, or a health insurance company by not having sex. If a person wants to go and have sex without the consequences they can use various contraceptives, paid by themselves because that is a want, NOT a need; or they can pay for the abortion, or morning after pill, themselves because it is a want, NOT a need.
As an individual you do NOT have a right to infringe upon the beliefs of any other individual by forcing them to pay for your wants, and that is exactly what this mandate does. If the person works for an organization run by Catholics, they should not expect a healthcare plan that includes birth control or abortions because that is counter to the employers religious freedoms. If you WANT (notice a pattern here?) those items as part of your healthcare find a job somewhere else.
Todd S| 2.9.12 @ 2:39PM
Bullcrap like Caroline says. A big problem with health insurance now is all the stupid mandates by the government for what has to be covered. All these stupid mandates do is make the insurance more expensive and more inefficient. Health insurance should be for medical emergencies, not for condoms and birth control. How about using the salary your employer pays you and go buy it yourself? Should car insurance pay to wash our cars and change the oil? All Obamacare is going to do is make everything more expensive and reduce the quality and choice of care. Use your brain if you are still capable of doing so and see the reality. Do you really trust an all powerful state to look after your interests?
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 4:12PM
You guys wish Obama's parents had used contraception in Hawaii five decades ago (Hawaii 5-0).
Liars, you.
TrueBlue | 2.9.12 @ 4:34PM
No, actually I don't. I don't hold Obama's parents responsible for the actions taken by their son. Upbringing can have an effect on people's beliefs, but at the end of the day the only person responsible for your actions and choices is YOU.
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 5:25PM
I don't believe you in this instance;
and I think it wouldn't have mattered to you if a rusty coathanger had been used to abort Bill Clinton.
TrueBlue | 2.9.12 @ 6:52PM
And now everything else you say from this point on is meaningless. You have called me a liar with no proof except your own bassackward beliefs.
If you had read ANY of my comments on the subject of abortion up to this point you would know I do not agree with it except in the case where the mother's life is at risk.
Just because I dislike and disagree with pretty much everything he has done and what he stands for does not mean I wish he had never been born. I just want him to stop ruining the country. If he wants to live in a Euro-style country there is a whole slew of them across the pond.
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 6:09PM
The above is a rare 'conservative' admission of how values are relative to time and place. In pre- '60s Dixie, Civil Rights was tantamount to heresy; today it has been accepted to the point of smarm-- today Rightists will proclaim their lack of racism until their lack of sincerity is eventually manifested by force of its being repeated.
TrueBlue | 2.9.12 @ 6:53PM
I never even mentioned racism, which just shows your brought up another standard Liberal cry any time they can't win an argument with facts.
Oh by the way, newsflash for you Brooks, it was the REPUBLICANS that pushed for equal rights, not the KKK-infused Democrats.
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 9:17PM
I meant below, not above; it is about Goldberg,not you:
qrstuv| 2.20.12 @ 7:34PM
"In pre- '60s Dixie, Civil Rights was tantamount to heresy"
Indeed it was. The south voted solidly for Democrats and was solidly opposed to Civil Rights.
And you do know the Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats, right?
The KKK lynched blacks for voting for Republicans, as Republicans had been hated in the South since Lincoln.
The racism problem was never an issue of political parties; it was a regional thing... That is, until the Democrats figured out how to get the black vote and rewrite history.
It is a vicious, evil lie that you are peddling.
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 6:12PM
The following, by Jonah Goldberg at NRO, is in response to Obama's contraception mandate:
"The Left often complains about the culture war as if it’s a war they don’t want to fight. They insist they just want to follow 'sound science' or 'what works' when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues. It’s all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil-rights movement demonstrates)."
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 4:13PM
You guys wish Obama's parents had used contraception in Hawaii five decades ago (Hawaii 5-0).
Liars, you.
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 5:28PM
No one says you have to like or respect Clinton or Obama, as long as you admit the depths of your animosity so there is no hiding behind your religion. Better to write:
"I Hate that guy in the white House and couldn't care less if Air Force One were to crash and burn."
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 6:21PM
Ah, what passion! Devoid of reasoning, it is the elixir for all zealots both right and left.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......along.html
Alan Brooks| 2.9.12 @ 9:18PM
Obama is going to back off on this anyway, so what are worried about?
Lyneuss Fields | 2.9.12 @ 10:38PM
He damn well might if Catholics in his own party come after him.
c. j. acworth| 2.9.12 @ 6:41AM
I can only hope that FINALLY the 45% of Americans who still think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread will have their blinders removed.
Brian Mc| 2.9.12 @ 7:01AM
I too, hope the same, c.j. with each new revelation that leads me to believe that the latest will FINALLY be that wake-up call we hope and expect at any moment. But, the libs I know continue to scream their twisted deceptions all the more which leads me to believe that they feel that they are just too far in and can never come back. I wish I could pray for them, but I find myself hating their actions and what it bodes for the country. Like little children wallowing in warm mud that we know to be something much more sinister, no amount of coaxing can get them to come out of that pen and that slinging of same has spattered us all.
c. j. acworth| 2.9.12 @ 7:31AM
Yes, the libs will scream, and always will. But perhaps a substantial fraction of those who allowed themselves to be decieved into voting for Hope and Change, because they thought that it would be great to vote for America's first black President, will wake up.
Lawrence Boccardi| 2.9.12 @ 7:23AM
No chance, C.J. We can only hope the remaining 55% are not duped by the "accomodation", between birth control/Catholics. The minute this traitor is re-elected, he will rethink and undo the "accomodation". Ask Bart Stupak.
c. j. acworth| 2.9.12 @ 7:36AM
True enough. But the tires under Obama's bus are so slick by now it's a wonder he can get any traction at all. A lot of people who supported Obama are getting disenchanted. Moderate Catholics and Evangelicals are the latest to join the run-over crowd.
Teaghan| 2.9.12 @ 7:53AM
Don't count on it CJ. He could murder his kids and they would say the right drove him to do it.
No, they will line up in Nov to pull the lever for their own doom.
Louis Jenkins| 2.9.12 @ 11:45AM
Hopefully a good many of that 45% are middle white class folks. If they don't the anti-Obama crowd is toast.
Dr. X| 2.9.12 @ 6:57AM
The problem with this article is that it assumes that people actually want liberty. Many do not. They want license, and the consequences of their actions paid for by the government.
I was watching television the other day and they were interviewing some dumb bitch at Catholic University. She was a 27 year old student and she thought it was just great that the government was going to force her church and her university to give her birth control because "it would cost $30 a month" and she didn't want to pay that.
So this university student, supposedly one of the smarter people in our society, is willing to sell the First Amendment down the river for $1 a day because she's too lazy and too ignorant to take responsibility for herself. And there are tens of MILLIONS just like her.
Liberty is difficult. Liberty requires that people choose wisely so that they do not screw up, and that they suffer the consequences if they do.
Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Madison, Lewis and Clark, etc. all wanted liberty. The average American today is an idiot and a moron who wants a soft tyranny to save him from himself.
Clint| 2.9.12 @ 7:23AM
A total of 86 bishops who have spoken out against the Obama/HHS mandate publicly.
Bishop Olmsted of phoenix, Archbishop Dennis Schnurr of Cincinnati and Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay, Wisconsin suggested the same in their public statements.
“We cannot – we will not comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their prosperity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope she can trust on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.”
Louis Jenkins| 2.9.12 @ 11:55AM
Basically the fight is by the conservative, still go to Mass, Catholics. The downside is that they are, like all of God's children, becoming smaller in number. Obama is at war with the Christian religion, and by treating a religous institution as any other institution, he continues to wage his war and with success. Would Obama attend a Southern Baptist church? Would he attend an American Methodist Chruch? No he would not. Look at the church he went to in Chicago and decide for onself what kind of church he prefers. And consider when he attends church in DC, why it's national headlines. Because he seldom goes. Although it contradicts itself, the Kenyian is Muslim, and he lies by attending church on Sunday once in a while.
Ted| 2.9.12 @ 12:05PM
"Basically the fight is by the conservative, still go to Mass, Catholics. The downside is that they are, like all of God's children, becoming smaller in number."
Au contraire, mon ami! It is the conservative go to Mass Catholics who are thriving! All praise to God!
Alice Moore| 2.9.12 @ 9:26AM
I work in a pharmacy. A few days ago a purchaser of a high end, name brand birth control pills groused about the higher than average co-payment. The said purchaser then said, "Aren't these supposed to be free now?"Ibid
What many do not realize is that they will be all herded into the present $8-$15 generic drug that are on pharmacies' low cost generic formularies. Why? A few pharmaceutical companies may be able and/or willing to off load costs. Others will simply cease manufacturing those products.
Mimi| 2.9.12 @ 9:52AM
My fear is the soft tyranny is about to be replaced, with a lot worse....Look what he is doing NOW....SCARY !
Indy| 2.9.12 @ 9:56AM
Birth control is already "free" under Title X, of course the "media" nor the cocktail party brings this up.
Of course "free" means the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Do you want your car insurance to cover oil changes? If so, what do you think happens to your premiums?
Nick| 2.9.12 @ 12:03PM
Indy,
I heard Senator Coburn bring this up, this morning, on MS-LSD.
He said that millions of federal tax dollars are sent to county health departments across the nation, so that they can provide free birth-control to whomever wants it. He didn't say when this started happening.
This is just as outrageous as O'Bama's onslaught on religious freedom, in my opinion.
Indy| 2.9.12 @ 12:43PM
Nick,
Thanks, glad to know Sen. Coburn brought it up. It's been funded for years, signed by Nixon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_X
Nick| 2.9.12 @ 1:39PM
Indy,
Thanks for the info!
I should have known this, but, sadly, I didn't.
If figures that RINO Nixon signed this into law.
Appleby| 2.9.12 @ 7:10AM
This may be exactly the wake-up call the churches have needed to make people understand that "Choose Ye This Day Whom You Will Serve" is not some slogan buried in the Old Testament that isn't relevant to today. People who have drifted into the shallows of their religion in the smug belief that Nobody Knows What I'm Doing will have to look their actions in the face and understand that they have in fact been putting that incense on the Emperor's Altar, and now they have the unpleasant task of Choosing This Day -- with everybody's eyes on them to see what they do. "Uncle Eugene and Aunt Mary," the teenager is going to say, "the Catholic Church says you can't use birth control and now the government says you gotta. Are you gonna stand for that?" Well? Are they?
Choose Ye This Day indeed.
Patrick| 2.10.12 @ 2:53AM
On the upshot, it gives the Church more reason to dust off Humanae Vitae.
POST American| 2.9.12 @ 8:13AM
---MEANWHILE
----HIGH TREASON ---thrice displayed.
Ginzburg's dump on the Constitution in
Egypt
Pelosi's call for full spectrum police state
monitoring of every aspect of our lives
in the genocide capital of hihstory
---RED China
and earlier, sitting President Obama
chairs the council of the unelected,
Global, corporate EUGENICS borg
---'United Nations'.
TREASON, HIGH TREASON of the
very highest order ----THRICE displayed
----in our face.
"When your time comes
-----------------WHAT WILL YOU DO?"
-IKIRU
(Kurosawa film)
1952
----------------OUR TIME HAS COME-----------------
-----------THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN-------------
------------------------WHAT WILL WE DO?
jim olson| 2.9.12 @ 12:46PM
The first thing we have to do is get you to a mental hospital.
Bill| 2.9.12 @ 8:16AM
Barack Obama is a Muslim, and he does not care about the Christians, and supports abortion.
Tom Osterman| 2.9.12 @ 9:44AM
The President may be a Muslim, but what about the rest of the Democrats? Do you think Obama would do something like this if he didn't know his party would be behind him?
Obama may not be re-elected and his party may take a pounding come November, but unless I miss my guess the Democratic Party will still be around in '14 and beyond. This won't be over for a long time to come.
Bill| 2.9.12 @ 11:45AM
Abortion is allowed in the Muslim community. Obama seeks the Muslim votes and is enforcing the abortion initiative in the Catholic Churches.
Jack in Wi.| 2.9.12 @ 4:02PM
Abortion is not allowed in most Muslim countries and artifical birth control is frowned upon. Get your facts right Bill. The Muslims are not killing their kids like atheists and some Christians do. Of course the pagans of China and India love abortion and contraception as well. Thats why all these populations are aging fast, while the Muslims continue to increase.
Tom Osterman| 2.9.12 @ 10:24PM
As far as that goes, I'm willing to bet that the Catholic votes blows away the Muslim vote and then some.
The larger point is that Obama's alleged devotion to Islam is beside the point. I seriously doubt that Kathleen Sibelius, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Michelle Obama or Jeremiah Wright are closet Muslims. So where is the daylight between them and the President?
Patrick| 2.10.12 @ 2:55AM
If they are coreligionists, then it is the faith of Narcissism.
JimH| 2.9.12 @ 8:20AM
I fully agree that what the Obama administration is doing is an unconstitutional usurpation of power. The issue though is bigger than the Feds versus the Catholic Church. It is government intrusion into any religious practice. I do wonder at how much outrage would be expressed if some Islamic organization in America was prohibited from, say requiring all women employees to wear burkas by the government or if Santeria practitioners were prohibited from animal sacrifice.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.9.12 @ 8:23AM
This is why Santorum swept the last three states in the primaries/caucuses. He is talking about freedom.
Romney is talking about minor changes in how the national health care service in America will rule you. I love Newt's passion and most of his message. The question is how many lives does this cat have?
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 12:50PM
Jr:
As we have both said before, This is about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the welfare state not about who can manage it better.
jim olson| 2.9.12 @ 1:18PM
would you prefer to have more people begging in the streets?
jim olson| 2.9.12 @ 1:18PM
would you prefer to have more people begging in the streets?
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 2:00PM
Jimmy:
You know that your comment is hyperbola ad absurdum. Go fly away with Superman or contribute to the debate.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.9.12 @ 2:13PM
Hey Al, If little jimmy read his Nietzsche, he would understand the significance of "Superman." He is Rousseau's "Noble Savage" that needs to be molded into not begging.
Wilson's "Intelligent Few," or today's Obama elitist have plan for jimmy. Out of your bunk and to the factory floor. Join your "Bewildered Herd" jimmy, you are holding up the line and the elities do not appreciate you affecting production.
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 3:44PM
Jr:
That is just great. It didn't occur to me when I posted. Isn't it grand being amongst a community of well read folks?
Von Mises Jr.| 2.9.12 @ 4:17PM
Al, especially when you are dealing with morons that can't pass a pile of crap without stepping in it. Ignorance is bliss for little jimmy, and will be until the government milk and cheese run low. Then the reality comes: work or don't eat.
What scares the snot out of guys that do read is that we understand that it is far worse than that: comply or don't eat.
Stupid, selfish liberal drones don't understand that they are also selling themselves into slavery. And for an EBT card?
John Navratil| 2.9.12 @ 6:15PM
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Franklin.
Let's hope jim olson is to busy occupying to vote. When the milk and cheese runs low, there may not be much left to defend.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.10.12 @ 7:07AM
The milk goes bad quickly, but I always have lots of cheese. Unlike jimmy, it is not government cheese.
But it is prudent to have lots of canned goods, pasta, beans and water. And ammo to protect your family and food.
Patrick| 2.10.12 @ 2:58AM
Hah! They never thought to hold out for Wales.
Nina| 2.9.12 @ 9:02AM
I was having a discussion with someone who thought the those against this want to "ban contraception" and had to explain to him that it was more of forcing people to do something they have been taught thru their church to not do...how can you force a catholic hospital or doctor to dole out BC or perform abortions? He/she didn't get it as I'm sure many others don't. I had to put it in simpler terms...if the government were to force muslums to eat pork, would that be okay? Also had to explain to him that contraception is available to anyone who wants it, just don't make me pay for it.
What they fail to see is the underlying issues and just how deep this goes....government control. Where does it stop?
jim olson| 2.9.12 @ 1:23PM
No lying, now, Nina. You know perfectly well the government is not forcing any church to do anything that is against their religious doctrine. What they are saying is if a church, in addition to having it's taxes paid by atheists like me, wants to feed from the public dole of my atheist tax dollars, they have to follow my rules.
Doug| 2.9.12 @ 3:59PM
So maybe those religous organizations like hospitals and universities should just close their doors. that will sure improve health care and education in America. Of course, then your tax dollars can be redistributed by Uncle Barry to those union members with the greatest need.
John Navratil| 2.9.12 @ 6:29PM
jim olson,
Your's is a classical liberal assumption that because a church pays no taxes (on property) that you are paying the tax for them. Church's pay no property taxes for similar reasons that charities have limited tax liabilities and government's pay have a different tax burden.
If you wish that you tax dollars not be channelled to charity through faith-based programs, let your Congressman know. You'd find some support with me and I would like to get the government out of the charity business completely. Charity is best done locally where people know one another. But I suspect this isn't really what you want, is it. Didn't you ask "would you prefer to have more people begging in the streets?" What was your solution? Could it be more government charitable (call it entitlement) spending?
You have it exactly backwards. The rules the church follows are its own. When the government attaches strings, the government money has been rejected. This is your real goal, isn't it: take money from the public and distribute it as YOU find acceptable.
idalily| 2.10.12 @ 3:20PM
Bingo.
PattyMor| 2.9.12 @ 9:45AM
Remember that Barack Obama is Machievellian. He uses issues to slice, dice, and divide; to stoke resentments and hatred. And he also sees that the Obamacare law is vastly unpopular. So why does he poke a stick in the eye of conservatives during an election season? I thought he'd wait for this until after the election and he's been firmly reelected.
Could it be that he wants the Supreme Court to rule that Obamacare is unconstitutional so that he can get reelected? And then after he's reelected, he'll simply put Obamacare into place by whatever means necessary? If my count total is correct, there are 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court. Hummm.
Mimi| 2.9.12 @ 10:02AM
Boy Patty, I think you are ON to something!!
The sooner the SCOTUS acts, they are saying JUNE, The sooner "O" will have the one thing off his back . I hope we are not that DUMB.
jim olson| 2.9.12 @ 1:25PM
Vastly unpopular if you ignore the 60% of Americans who are still sane.
John Navratil| 2.9.12 @ 6:30PM
In which group are you?
jim olson| 2.9.12 @ 1:28PM
Will the Catholics on the supreme court recuse themselves?
Patrick| 2.10.12 @ 3:02AM
Once the idiots recuse themselves as well.
St. Thos| 2.9.12 @ 9:49AM
Considering the history of his Church, I wonder if Mitt Romney thinks this is "worth getting angry about"?
Mimi| 2.9.12 @ 10:12AM
Mitt should have spoke , a long time ago and admitted Romneycare also was a mistake....MAJOR error. Government control of the peoples healthcare is just not AMERICAN...This latest controversy is just the beginning we have to kill this thing once and for all. Let the FREE market take care of this...it can and WILL. If they got rid of EVERYTHING health insurance and just had catastrophic and hospital insurance and we paid for Dr. visits the MARKET would cut the expence in all ways!
THKrupp| 2.9.12 @ 1:57PM
Thats really the only solution to health care is to get it out of the governments and corporate hands. Insurance should be outlawed or at least have a significant deductibles. Insurance plans should be negociated by individuals or private groups such as some sort of coop for health plans.
The idea that employers should pay for your health care benefits or any other kind of benefit is wrong headed. The farther you remove the consumer from the provider the worse it becomes. There is no mechanism in our healthcare system for cost control because the consumer doesnt negociate or write the check for the product in many cases. In my mind anything other than limited insurance should be outlawed. Insurance gives a false sense of security and over time leads to riskier and riskier behavior because the individual believes that they are shielded from bad effects. We see this in all areas of life. This is basically what caused the credit default bust. This is what encourages people to make poor health care and lifestyle choices. The government and corporations need to get out of our lives.
Patrick| 2.10.12 @ 3:04AM
Mitt is a technocrat. If someone says that by cunning and computers a thing can be done, he will sign on. Sometimes this pans out, other times, well...
Rosie| 2.9.12 @ 10:13AM
Tell me where is the balance between pro-life and pro-choice? Do they cover pregnancies? Oh no that's a thousand dollar a month add-on. If it's about wellness you would think that would be first on their list. Why don't they just come out and tell all grocery stores that they must give every family a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread and a carton of eggs every week. Those mean old oil companies should give us ten gallons of gas a week. Where does it end- like Cuba?
irish19| 2.9.12 @ 10:44AM
"Where does it end- like Cuba?"
Yes, but without the fine cigars and rum.
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 10:24AM
We are fortunate that this issue was the chosen one for such a heavyhanded mandate. Let us call it what it is, a dictat, an edict from the Empire. Since it is a sensitive matter we see more clearly just how intrusive and authoritarian our government has become.
Todays WSJ editorial page as an article by John Cochrane on the point. It is a much larger issues than simply a particular prescription or treatment. Aside from forcing many to violate their conscience, it is a deadly reminder of just how far we have fallen into the grasp of "our betters".
tadcf| 2.9.12 @ 10:29AM
Humanism is where concern with the individual in the here and now take precedence over the other-worldly. I hope the humanistic approach continues to win of godliness.
Patrick| 2.10.12 @ 3:06AM
You are so obviously ignorant of that which you speak. If you learned these words from a university, I suggest that you demand your money back.
tonypal| 2.9.12 @ 10:40AM
I have yet to hear any stories relating to the application of this regulation/law to Muslims/mosques. I wonder why?
HK| 2.9.12 @ 11:34AM
Faith and religion celebrate life, a centralized government (RE: Obama et. al.) does not, and thus end up encouraging death. Death at the beginning of life, death before the natural end of life, and a soul-less, dead life lived in between.
Nick| 2.9.12 @ 11:38AM
The author is wrong about one thing. Birth-control is not medicine. Nor, is it health-care.
In more cases than not, birth-control is whore-care.
And, abortion is back-up whore-care.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.9.12 @ 5:15PM
Thanks. Similar to what I was going to post; now I don't need to.
Nick| 2.9.12 @ 7:12PM
Tim,
You're welcome.
Great minds think alike, huh? Ha-ha!
Jobe| 2.9.12 @ 12:16PM
This flap about contraception, abortifacients, and procedures is really not the issue. The issue, in reality, is: Should the Federal Government dictate to private insurance companies, private consumers, and private non-consumers what should be covered, how it should be paid for, and who should be covered?
This situation, with king obama dictating his will and forcing it on the citizenry under penalty of fine and imprisonment, is horrific. However, arguing against this is like arguing about the method of your execution. Obviously if you reach that point, you have already accepted that you are going to die, and your only quibble is how.
Bill| 2.9.12 @ 12:17PM
I've read the U.S. Constitution beginning to end more times than I can count and I've never found a single word, phrase, or sentence in there that guarantees a right of the people to contraception.
There IS a Tenth Amendment, leaving it to the states or the people to decide on new rights, though.
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 12:54PM
Bill:
This is not in disagreement, but when government grants what we call rights, they are in fact simply privileges. Rights are what we hold by virtue of our humanity, given by our Creator if you will. Government exists to protect and defend those rights, not to seek to dispense additional privileges.
Bill| 2.9.12 @ 4:09PM
Yes, "privileges" is probably the better term for government-granted entitlements.
W| 2.9.12 @ 4:12PM
According to the Supremes, the right to contraception comes from our right to privacy and then the emanations from the penubras from the right of privacy creates the right to abortion. Is that clear? Why do you think you will find it in the plain language of the Constitution. Throw it away. The constitution is whatever the Justices say it is.
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 5:18PM
W:
I often reflect on the irony of penumbras. Is it not dark during an eclipse? Hardly illuminating.
W| 2.9.12 @ 5:22PM
Al Adab
Where should we hold the convention or meeting for the AmSpec bloggers?
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 6:13PM
On the White House lawn?
We would need somewhere equidistant for most. I don't know the locations of many. PA, KY. TX are some. That rather leaves St. Louis or K City. Where are the best restaurants?
W| 2.9.12 @ 6:23PM
We need ConChef to advise us on restaurants. He is the expert.
jim olson| 2.9.12 @ 12:34PM
Every single one of you is outraged over something that does not exist.No one is being forced to do anything against their will. However if any idol worshiper wants my atheist tax dollars, they have to follow my rules. Simple, No?
JP| 2.9.12 @ 2:17PM
Fine get the government and the employers out of the health care business. It can be done, and everyone would benefit. But, people like you would never allow it.
Bill| 2.9.12 @ 4:10PM
No, when you turn over your money to the government in taxes, the government decides how the money will be spent, not you.
John Navratil| 2.9.12 @ 6:36PM
jim olson,
Please put your wallet away. I can't afford it. Although your point is pure bull ca-ca.
Caroline| 2.9.12 @ 1:33PM
Barack can burn churches here like his cousin Odinga did in Kenyam(with the exception of Sarah Palin's of course,) or slaughter Christians like his Islamic Jihadist friends in the Middle East, so he does it stealthily. Make no mistake, this is his intent.
Caroline| 2.9.12 @ 1:34PM
Barack can't burn churches here like his cousin Odinga did in Kenyam(with the exception of Sarah Palin's of course,) or slaughter Christians like his Islamic Jihadist friends in the Middle East, so he does it stealthily. Make no mistake, this is his intent.
THKrupp| 2.9.12 @ 1:46PM
I think this issue illustrates why we need to get employers out of paying for health care. This is not an issue that should concern the government or employers.
Why does no one question the idea of employers providing this? I understand how it got started but I fail to understand why its maintained. We need to get rid of employer funded health care. The only entity that should be paying or be concerned with an individuals health care is the individual or his/her family. It baffles me that anyone thinks that this is the best way to manage health care. If an individual wants contraceptive coverage then it should be available for them to get. It should not be up to your employer what kind of health care you recieve at all.
David Thomas | 2.9.12 @ 2:05PM
Obama says that, as a Christian, he favors higher tax rates for the rich. Yet, he refuses to let Catholics honor their religion by hiring people to take care of the poor unless they dishonor their religion by providing to those employees free abortion-inducing drugs. Government-controlled health care is a pathway to violation of our constitutional and unalienable rights.
Freedom of worship is not limited to what is done in private. It is a way of life. Its actions that violate the rights of others must be prevented. This issue shows the folly of a right to medical care if it necessitates that someone else be the source. One person's rights must end where those of another begins.
JP| 2.9.12 @ 2:19PM
If anything, this issue highlights the impossibility of ObamaCare. The President's over-reach hopefully will resurrect the entire health care issue, and force everyone to see what lays before us.
Naturalborn Texicanette| 2.9.12 @ 2:35PM
Timothy.
POWERFUL!!! And so frightening!!!
Maybe some who post here will finally wake up and see the mechanications of the Socialist gangster in the White House for what they are.......
A deliberate, malicious, and systematic attack of all we hold dear about the the United States of American, and all this great country was created for.
Rise up Americans. The time is near................
Bill| 2.9.12 @ 2:50PM
Obama is a "Madman" seeking a 2nd term, whatever it takes.
SCPOret| 2.9.12 @ 4:38PM
The Obama is pushing class warfare and he is right. This years election is between two classes and who wins will determine the furure of the United States.
The election is between "The Entitled and The Enlightened". The Enlightened must win
shipley130| 2.9.12 @ 4:45PM
If healthcare is a human right, why do we have to pay for it?
Al Adab| 2.9.12 @ 6:15PM
It isn't. Medical care is simply a commodity or service like any other.
Purp| 2.9.12 @ 5:31PM
Get it straight - it is not forcing religious institutions, Churches, Synagogues or Mosques to pay for anything at all. What is is mandating is that as an employer of non-religious institutions, the Church, etc. must follow labor law and support employer healthcare plans to their employees. Just like Catholic Hospitals and Universities have to provide workers compensation, unemployment compensation and a myriad of labor related items.
This is a trumped up pack of lies - no religion is being forced to do anything. Hell, the largest Catholic University in America, DePaul University already offers this coverage, as do most hospitals and universities.
It's much ado about nothing - except hatred of all things Obama - and women see through it all. Old men, in fact, men, will never get it.
John Navratil| 2.9.12 @ 6:38PM
I like what Thoreau said when being jailed for not paying his taxes - "What's for dinner?"
I suspect this will not work out quite like your idol expects it to.
Nite| 2.9.12 @ 6:42PM
You need to look at the ruling. It also mandates that religious hospitals provide abortions. It requires the pills that will cause abortions as well. It strikes a lot more than Catholics.
Purp| 2.10.12 @ 10:44AM
Yes, it does - a hospital is NOT a religious institution. It is affiliated with REAL religious institution. THAT is the difference. Take away the Catholic Church, it's still a hospital where people work. Take away the Catholic Church, and there is no Church or people that work in that religious institution. Why are people so dumb?
Nick| 2.10.12 @ 11:22PM
The Catholic Church practically invented hospitals, as we know them today, moron.
It is part of Her mandate to care for the sick and the poor, in the imitation of Christ's works of healing.
President Downgrade is violating the 1st Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, period.
qrstuv| 2.20.12 @ 7:40PM
It seems that like most leftists you are OK with freedom of private religious thought but not OK with freedom of religious expression.
If you constrict the First Amendment to be solely about institutions and not about individuals, you don't really respect freedom of religion at all.
J.C.Eaton| 2.9.12 @ 7:26PM
What a sorry excuse for an argument":DePaul University does it." That is part of the problem: inauthentic "catholic universities...." Use your real name. You wouldn't make any more sense but you'd justify the testosterone the Good Lord gave you.
Bob S| 2.9.12 @ 11:19PM
Perp, you ain't got a clue.
The mandate specifies that people/employers that don't believe in something on the account of religion have to provide it. But what's provided is not a wage for work performed. End of story.
Now if the govt. wants to provide this to its workers, that's one thing, but the rest of us ain't drinking the totalitarian utopian kool-aid.
Unless, that is, we really spell it Amerika.
Capiche?
Pat| 2.9.12 @ 5:32PM
“.. the fundamental view of liberty enshrined in Obamacare” – please spare us the flag waving, Goldberg. Obama’s issues are always about money, moolah, dough, baksheesh and not to mention “the bread”. True to his track record, this is the 700th time Obama and his cronies have played the “it’s not about money, it’s about principles” card. But it’s really about the money, it’s always about that mundane prize and, by the way, we’re talking your money here in case you haven’t noticed.
Look at what happened to “it’s about alternative energy” as an example. Hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars went to companies that took our money and promptly declared bankruptcy. But what actually happened to the money – bankruptcy doesn’t explain who benefitted, hundreds of millions of dollars went somewhere – but where?
Obama head faked us voters with his visions of energy savings, but all along it was nothing more complicated than funnel the taxpayer’s money to his friends and supporters. Obamacare is no different, the same transparent scam played on us taxpayers. And, sure enough, some Conservative pundit will fall for the hype and begin prattling on about “fundamental views of liberty” – amazing this same dodge works time after time with some Conservatives.
Bottom-lining it: Obamacare, Alternative Energy, High Speed Rail, Auto Bailouts and on and on are the same swindle only wearing a different disguise. An identical pattern of clever money laundering schemes over and over, yet we still debate ephemeral “principles” like high school sophomores arguing prescribed uniform codes versus dress anyway you like. Obama has the legal authority at present, he also has the keys to our nation’s Treasury – it was never about principles.
Tony in Central PA| 2.9.12 @ 9:26PM
Ask any group of High School students today where their rights comef rom and the answer will invariably be " the government ". We now have a bunch of High Schoolers running the government.
POST American| 2.9.12 @ 10:17PM
--Sideshows and '90's Show' SAP OPs aside--
HIGH TREASON thrice waved in our faces
--Sitting President BAR-Rockefeller Obama
presides at the UN
----Nancy Pelosi calls openly for the relentless,
full spectrum surveilling and monitoring of
every aspect of our lives --during her visit
to the historic capital of GENOCIDE
---the Globalist 'mere--ICK--ALL' RED China
-------and now, sitting justice Ginzburg's
call for dumping the Constitution in Egypt.
"Did you just hear me?
--------------THIS IS TREASON"
-ALEX JONES
AND IT IS
----------AND NOW----------
WHICH side
------------of NATION---cide
-----------------------is YOUR side?
Better figure that out ----------------10 years ago.
Timely Renewed | 2.11.12 @ 3:58PM
The fundamental underlying problem goes beyond this particular provision of Obamacare. The real issue is the 70 year old Supreme Court decisions which vastly expanded the original scope of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause. We will not be able to stop and roll back Obamacare or the numerous other ever-increasing expansions of the federal leviathan until we have restored the original meaning of the interstate commerce clause. Given how entrenched those old decisions are, we can only accomplish this by amending the Constitution to reverse these Supreme Court misinterpretations of the Constitution's original meaning and structure. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
POST American| 2.13.12 @ 2:14AM
----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
IMPORTANT to keep in mind, for all
the blather about population 'easing'
(ie incremental, pre-emptive extermination)
----the capstone remains the very force
and source of decades upon decades of
demoralizing sex --dope n' porn 'cult-your'.
THEY shut down the REAL culture of
courtship, fertility and spirit.
THEY subverted the standing church
which was standing up to this.
Remember kiddies!
'Sexual Liberation' --is a Rockefeller OP
for --your-- ELIMINATION via Sex
-------------------------------------NO JOKE