[Servant of the Cross]

0bama moved his lips. Of course he's lying.

[Triple]

oooooo, this one is going to leave a mark.

[duckman]

IMO, it’s still a mandate, just shifting whom will pay the cost.

[ELS]

Bttt

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[2111USMC]

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.

[Washi]

Why is the issue even being debated as a religious freedom issue? Have we already declared failure on the argument that the federal government is overstepping its Constitutional authority by mandating that ANY entity provide ANY kind of medical coverage?

There is, simply, nothing in the Constitution that allows them any authority in these matters at all.

[djpg]

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.

[nicmarlo]

bump

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.