Last year’s Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional ensured that the massive expansion of government power would go forward, but it did not remove all legal challenges to the legislation. Religious organizations rightly objected to the bill’s mandate that even those who objected on religious grounds had to pay for services that violated their beliefs. Opponents of the mandate were falsely portrayed last year as taking part in a Republican “war on women” that helped whip up support for President Obama and the Democrats. Yet Church groups and others who opposed being compelled to pay for abortion drugs and contraception services rejected those slurs and challenged the mandate in court with lawsuits that were proceeding with mixed success.
But after today, some of those suits will be dropped after the White House announced a limited retreat on the issue. According to reports, the administration will no longer insist that religious non-profits observe the mandate or be in any way made to pay for services that offend their consciences. This is very good news for church institutions that were not previously exempted. But it is by no means the end of the story. Under the revised rules, individual business owners—such as those who run the Hobby Lobby store chain—who similarly object on religious grounds, are still liable to ruinous penalties amounting to millions of dollars. This amounts to a cribbed definition of religious freedom that limits its expressions only to non-profits and houses of worship, but forces all others to bend to the dictates of the federal government even at the cost of their right to practice their faith.
It needs to be restated that one needn’t share the views of the Catholic Church about contraception or abortion to understand that what is at stake here is a principle of religious freedom that ought not to be sacrificed. The notion of universal and free contraception insurance coverage may be popular and even desirable for those who have no qualms about the government’s intrusion into this sphere of the economy or the consequent ruinous costs to both the taxpayers and the healthcare system. But however much the idea of free contraception appeals to some people, it is not a constitutional right. Nor is it a value that ought to trump the primary guarantees of the First Amendment that protect liberty of faith.
The White House retreat on the issue to the extent of exempting church institutions including schools is a sign of progress. It’s also intended to separate the church from individual believers whose rights will not be protected by this compromise. The church has been wrongly portrayed as trying to thwart the availability of contraception even though it is doing no such thing. The point of the administration’s campaign on this issue was not, as they claimed, to protect the health of women but to demonize those who stood up for their rights. But however much this retreat will be welcomed, it should not cause those who have fought this mandate to back down from their efforts to ensure that all believers and not just those registered as non-profits are allowed to opt out of a system that tramples on their faith.
At the core of this struggle is the question of whether a government that has given itself more power has the right to run roughshod over the First Amendment in order to satisfy the liberal ambition to move toward a national health care system. Religious freedom does not consist merely of the right to preach in churches or synagogues, but in allowing those who believe to fully participate in society. If the mandate tramples faith by individuals in this manner, it means that faith is no longer welcome in the public square but instead must be segregated and confined to houses of worship. Though the church is happily no longer in peril of such compulsion, others remain in the government’s cross hairs. Their challenge should continue and be rewarded with success in the courts.
I am not Catholic or right-to-life. I certainly don't disapprove of contraception. But I object vehemently to a federal policy that considers contraception an "essential element" of medical coverage and forces everyone to pay for a medical insurance policy that includes "free" birth control" whether they want it or not. We will soon see the complete HHS list of "essential elements" of coverage under ACA, and I suspect it will be extensive. Many providers will want to have their services covered, so inclusion in the list will become a matter of politics. This only increases the intrusiveness and cost of this monstrous legislation.
This White House decision will quite possibly lead to an increase in the number of abortions.
what kind or nonsense r u spewing? we live in a Republic that is secular and should NOT have to change its position to accommodate a religion's unfounded claims that "life" begins at fertilization. at the very least, scientifically "life" begins at IMPLANTATION of the fertilized egg onto to uterine wall. 2/3 of fertilized eggs do NOT implant at all, and die. nthe Republic's laws do not allow polygamy, even though it is permitted in the Mormon and Muslim faiths. n n n n
What kind of nonsense are you spewing? n nmost abortions are not medically indicated, they are usually elective procedures n njust like, mammary augmentation and liposuction… n nWHY should i be forced to pay for some individuals' elective procedure? Or to provide any individual with contraceptives? n nShould we pay for laxatives and lubricants? n nAre you nuts? Where does it stop? n nwhere does responsibility for ones actions begin? n
come on, charleston, please can the archie-bunker pick-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps republicanism that Ronald Reagan perfected to get blue-collar white men to vote for a nearly-dead party that met the interests only of the plutocrats. Populism 101–get the masses on your side with idiotic non-issues that push panic buttons. a little racism, a little paranoia of the "establishment," a dose of bible-thumping, abortion, birth control, lots of gornisht mit gornisht. nwell, it did not work this time., and it will not again. the blue-collar male vote ain't what it used to be.
what are you babbling about? n nI don;t have a big problem with abortion- n nI just don;t want to pay for some woman's elective procedure-if you do, go right ahead n nmaybe that could be a voluntary contribution on the income tax form…..make everyone happy n nI am sure you would be happy to pay your fair share, n'est pas?
Hey, it doesn’t stop there. n nIf I want to medicate my insides with some alcohol, the government should pay for that, right? (/sarc) n
why is it these schmuks never respond?
Sooo…. your right to religious freedom trumps your employee's right to the same? n nThe group threatening an invidivual''s religious freedom here is NOT the govt…its the employer who insists HE/SHE alone has the right to determine what sort of health coverage his INDIVIDUAL employees should have. Comes under NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS… n nyou could sidestep all this crap by stopping the very stupid practice of associating a citizen's health insurance with their place of employment …but no, that'd be too common sense.
The Obama Administration's compromise will probably infuriate the President's supporters in the Sandra Fluke wing of the progressive base while failing to make the issue go away. Smelling blood in the water, the opposition will redouble its efforts to eliminate this offensive mandate.