Posted on 02/11/2012 8:21:31 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
The president’s pretend compromise today does nothing to fix the religious-liberty problems he has created for millions of Americans who do not share his view that contraception and abortion are good things.
First, the idea that religious employers will not be paying for contraception, sterilization, and abortion drugs under this system is simply false. The coverage only comes through an insurance policy, and the religious employer is being forced by the government to buy that policy. For most religious believers, stapling the coverage on as a rider isn’t any better than including it on page 2 of the policy. At the end of the day, the employer still pays for the policy, the policy still provides the coverage, and the employer’s offering the policy is the trigger for the coverage. For most, that will be insufficient.
Second, remember that the big problem with the original rule was its exceedingly narrow definition of “religious employer.” What is the new definition of the other entities that are going to be protected? We have no idea — the president won’t tell us. Instead, he apparently wants even more time to think about it, at least until after the next election. So we have no idea what institutions are even going to get the thin protection of the alleged compromise.
Third, this does nothing to protect churches and other institutions like EWTN that are self-insured. The whole point of the compromise is to stick the burden on the insurer. Well, for many dioceses and folks like EWTN, they are the insurers — so they are still being forced to directly provide the coverage that violates their religion. Ironically, many of these institutions self-insure precisely in order to avoid state-law requirements to provide these drugs. So the president, whether intentionally or not, is eliminating the safety valve that works in many states to protect religious institutions. Thanks for that “compromise.”
Fourth, and most important, this compromise does absolutely nothing to protect individual religious Americans. To listen to the president and much of the media, the only people who have religious liberty in this country are churches and religiously affiliated institutions. But religious liberty is the inalienable right of all Americans, not just churches. The president’s compromise offers nothing to protect individual religious liberty — if you own a pharmacy or a doctor’s office or a gas station and you have a religious objection to buying these products, tough luck. Maybe if you wore a collar or a habit the president would respect your religious liberty, but not if you wear a tie, scrubs, or coveralls. Of course this is all entirely contrary to law — individuals have religious-freedom rights under the First Amendment and under RFRA. And to the extent the president thought he could avoid the First Amendment because of the Smith case, he just blew up his own argument: Try convincing a federal court that your law is “neutral” among religious objectors after you have publicly declared a three-class world — churches (which maybe don’t have to provide the coverage at all), religiously affiliated institutions (which have to do it by having their insurer staple on a rider), and the rest of us (who apparently have no rights). Obamacare never was neutral or generally applicable, but the president demonstrated it more effectively this afternoon than ever before.
The president has had three chances to get religious liberty right. He swung and missed terribly in August, setting off the first firestorm with his historically stingy definition of a religious employer. He swung and missed again in January, when Secretary Sebelius was kind enough to offer believers an extra year to “adapt” their religious principles to government orthodoxy. And he swung and missed today with his phony compromise seeking (yet again) to take the air out of the issue until election time.
Three strikes and you’re out, Mr. President. Instead of solving your religious-freedom problems, this series of half-measures is just keeping the religious-liberty issue on the front page. The administration’s stubborn refusal to offer real protection for religious liberty just ensures that they will continue to face a host of lawsuits. Those lawsuits will not disappear until the administration respects religious liberty. And until then, the president can expect to see more and more courts reject his narrow views of religious liberty as “extreme,” “untenable,” and out of step with the First Amendment, just as a unanimous Supreme Court did last month.
oooooo, this one is going to leave a mark.
IMO, it’s still a mandate, just shifting whom will pay the cost.
Bttt
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Obamacare in its entirety is unconstitutional.
Everything this asshat does is detrimental to our country.
I dream of the day that Barry Soetero is led out of the White House by US Marshals in handcuffs.
There is, simply, nothing in the Constitution that allows them any authority in these matters at all.
Why should women be given free contraceptives, anyway? Is it discriminatory that men don’t get free condoms? And why not free clothes, dishes, cellphones, and everything else? This is just plain old socialism in disguise.
bump
I dream of the day that Barry Soetero is led out of the White House in handcuffs by US Marshals.
I'm not nit picking but what you said just struck me as funny with US Marshals wearing handcuffs are leading BS out (he gets away with crap almost as if he had the judicial system in his pocket...no wait).
Regards,
GtG
When government mandates any item to be included or be passed out free in a private insurance contract, it is overstepping it’s Constitutional authority. Common sense means an added feature adds costs and the cost is paid by the insured or others in the insurance pool, especially if some item is deemed free.
Also, insurance historically has been regulated at the state, not federal level. State regulation requires that rates for a given risk be uniform, considering the individual risk factors and considering the insured’s loss history. State regulation is also mostly to guard on the insurance co. from overstepping what is fair under contract law and that disputed payments can be fairly reviewed. Obama is going against history, common sense and the Constitution.
Why does everyone adopt their Language and argue the issue according to the way they Frame it. If you agree that Obama has the Authority to Compromise on your God Given rights according to the Constitution,then it is over,he has no Authority to Trample your Constitutional Right to Practice your Faith and he does Not have the authority to Order Insurance companies to cover anything and what to charge for it so lets stop jumping up and down and trying to Rationalize all these left wing Absurdities. Someone in authority should hold a News Conference and say the President is out of Control and is Violating his Oath of Office on a daily basis and he should skip a Round of Golf and get a Copy of The Constitution for Dummies
LOL!
My Priest’s take on it:
Original scenario: “You’re going to hang. Bring your own rope from home and give it to us to put around your neck.”
New scenario: “You’re going to hang. We’re sending someone to the store to buy the rope. Hand over the money to pay for it.”
Cell phones are free if you are below 125% of poverty line, or on food stamps. Betcha didn't know that huh?:)
Is this a Great Country or What?
This is one of those instances where I wish there was a like button on fr.
Fourth, and most important, this compromise does absolutely nothing to protect individual religious Americans. To listen to the president and much of the media, the only people who have religious liberty in this country are churches and religiously affiliated institutions. But religious liberty is the inalienable right of all Americans, not just churches.The president’s compromise offers nothing to protect individual religious liberty — if you own a pharmacy or a doctor’s office or a gas station and you have a religious objection to buying these products, tough luck. Maybe if you wore a collar or a habit the president would respect your religious liberty, but not if you wear a tie, scrubs, or coveralls. Of course this is all entirely contrary to law — individuals have religious-freedom rights under the First Amendment and under RFRA.
And to the extent the president thought he could avoid the First Amendment because of the Smith case, he just blew up his own argument: Try convincing a federal court that your law is “neutral” among religious objectors after you have publicly declared a three-class world — churches (which maybe don’t have to provide the coverage at all), religiously affiliated institutions (which have to do it by having their insurer staple on a rider), and the rest of us (who apparently have no rights). Obamacare never was neutral or generally applicable, but the president demonstrated it more effectively this afternoon than ever before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.