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.
