The White House has offered something it calls a compromise on the so-called contraception mandate — and by “compromise” the Obama administration apparently means offering a symbolically tweaked plan to go forward with trampling Americans’ religious liberties while pretending to accommodate them. In truth, nothing of substance has changed from the administration’s January 20 announcement that religious employers will be forced to provide services they find morally objectionable.
Advertisement
Here’s what the Obama plan would mean in practical terms: If a “non-exempt religious employer” — that is, a religiously affiliated employer, such as a Catholic social-service agency, that is not exempt from the mandate as a house of worship — chooses to offer health insurance to its workers, that insurance must always include among its benefits free contraception, sterilization, and access to abortion-inducing drugs. Which is to say that if they offer health insurance at all, many religious employers would be complicit in funding products and services that are in direct violation of the fundamental norms of their faiths. The substance of the “compromise” is the fact that the requirement to provide these services free of charge would be relocated, moving out of the employers’ insurance contract and into a federal regulation governing what insurers must include in the policies they sell to non-exempt religious employers. In effect, religious employers will be told that they can buy whatever policies they want, but insurers will be able to sell them only policies that cover contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and the like. This “compromise” leaves religious employers in precisely the same position they were in before: with no way to offer insurance that does not include coverage they find morally objectionable.
It should go without saying that this coverage is not free and that insurers aren’t going to be eating the expenses. The cost of providing these products and services will be exactly the same as before, irrespective of how the requirement is enforced. Non-exempt employers will be paying exactly the same premiums as under the previous policy, and their premiums will be paying for benefits that violate their religious liberties.
Catholics and others who have joined together in a groundswell of opposition to the heavy-handedness of the White House on these matters should not be duped by this act of political theater. What is at stake is a matter of first principles: If the federal government can impose this kind of pernicious requirement on religious institutions, what can it not do? Even those who are generally friendly toward contraception and abortion should be given pause by this: Any future pro-life Republican president would be invested with precisely the same powers to write his every whim into federal insurance law.
The solution to this problem is not to be found in legislative compromises or political horse-trading but in the Constitution: The American people are guaranteed the right to religious liberty by the First Amendment. That means protecting both the rights of religious institutions and those of individual citizens. There are tens of millions of pro-life Americans, representing a variety of religious affiliations. Some own businesses, and most work for non-religious employers. They have rights, too. Shouldn’t they be allowed to buy and sell health-insurance plans that do not violate their consciences? At an absolute minimum, any resolution to this dispute must ensure that they do.
The fundamental problem here is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which invests the president, through the secretary of health and human services, with extraordinary powers to dictate terms to consumers, employers, and health-care providers. Such unaccountable power reliably leads to abuse, and this assault on our religious liberties will not be the last of them, and perhaps not the worst of them.
Obamacare, as passed by Congress, gave dictatorial power to the Executive Branch, with regards to anything connected to "health" in America. Congress likes to give away the powers granted to it by the Constitution, it also likes to give away powers nobody was granted in the Constitution, as in this situation. This is another in a long line of consolidations of power into the Executive branch. Elected Emperors are what we have now, and for now they respect their own elections and term limits... how long will that last?
Thank you for helping to push this issue to the forefront. I hope that the religious community, and anyone of conscience, does not cave on this issue in the face of the withering attacks by the Executive Branch and the MSM. I fear some compromise will come that some liberal churches will accept and that does not remove the regime's power to dictate what private organizations MUST do according to his will.
The problem is even more fundamental than that. Employers shouldn't be providing health insurance at all. The health insurance market should be at the individual/family, just like all other forms of insurance we use to protect ourselves from financial disaster (auto, home, life).
The National Review editorial correctly notes the religious liberties implications of the Administration’s purported compromise concerning its contraceptive services policy. But, in addition to the serious religious liberties aspect, the purported compromise seems to also raise serious questions about deprivation of property without due process of law.
Imposing the cost of contraceptive services on the insurance companies means that imposed cost becomes part of the overall cost of doing business (CODB) for the insurance companies. Usually, the price of goods and services is calculated with the overall CODB as a significant part of the equation. So, an increased CODB means either (1) a loss of revenue for the company, or (2) a need to increase the price of goods and services to all customers to cover the increased CODB. The National Review editorial points out the likelihood that insurance companies will not be “eating the expenses” and therefore will pass the costs onto all its customers, including religious organizations. That likelihood highlights the failure of the Administration’s purported compromise to meaningfully address the religious liberties aspect of the situation. But, focusing on the religious liberties aspect of the situation should not obscure the deprivation of property without due process of law implications of the Administration’s purported compromise.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits, inter alia, deprivation of property without due process of law. Any Presidential directive or regulation by an Executive Branch agency or department that orders or directs an insurance company to provide any particular kind of service without cost has the practical effect of being a form of taking of the company’s property. But, where is the due process of law? In Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court held that President Truman did not have authority to seize steel mills during the Korean War, even though he claimed the seizure was necessary to ensure continuation of steel production during the Korean War. What constitutional basis is there for the President of the United States to claim (implicitly) that he possesses the authority to unilaterally impose on insurance companies an obligation that has the practical effect of depriving them of control over part of their property? Since Executive Branch departments and agencies have no greater constitutional authority than the President of the United States, no Executive Branch department or agency can claim greater authority to unilaterally impose such an obligation by regulation or directive. Finally, even if there is arguably some provision of the Affordable Health Care Act that might support a claim that such authority can be exercised, the exercise of such authority still would have to comport with due process of law. Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the governmental imposition of an obligation that has the practical effect of depriving a business of some portion of its property must comply with due process of law, not merely a press conference or other unilateral Presidential or Executive Branch declaration or announcement.
One thing your point brings to mind and that is that if we take at face value that insurers cannot pass the buck to religious institutions for free contraceptives, nothing seems to prevent the possibility that other people's premiums will go up an additional increment due to one segment not paying. This will be on top of the incremental increase on everyone for providing free contraception and other goodies. This gets back to how the overall health insurance mandate will have Americans pointing their fingers at each other for raising their monthly premiums.
What you fail to understand, is that the insurance premiums for the policy that includes coverage for contraceptives is LOWER than the policy that does not. This change actually saves money for the catholic institutions.
The passage of time and actual experience eventually will show whether or not there will be any savings gained from the contraceptive services policy. But, the constitutional due process issue is totally unaffected by whether or not there are any savings gained from governmental action.
When the federal government takes action that has the practical effect of taking control of the property of a person or business (e.g., by seizing it, or by ordering the person or business to use or not use it in a specific way or for a specific purpose), that person or business is still entitled to invoke the protection of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of: (1) what purpose or objective the federal government wishes to achieve; (2) what prediction the federal government makes about the effects of its taking; and (3) whether or not the federal government can claim or show that the taking will eventually result in a savings or other benefit for the person or business whose property has been taken.
The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not state or imply that property can be taken without due process if : (1) the federal government seeks to achieve a benevolent purpose or objective; (2) the federal government predicts the taking of property will result in some savings or other benefit for the person or business whose property is being or will be taken; or (3) the federal government can claim or show that its taking of property will eventually result in a savings for the person or business whose property has been taken.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution states or implies that its provisions --- including the protections conferred by the Bill of Rights --- are suspended, superceded, overridden, waived, or rendered irrelevant whenever the federal government: (1) claims it seeks to achieve a benevolent purpose; (2) predicts its action will benefit the person or business affected by the government's actions; or (3) can claim or show that its action will have beneficial financial results for the person or business affected by its actions.
Perhaps the best way to get the Left on our side in this conflict lies with our Presidential candidates. They can state what is explained in this article.
"If this mandate stands, the Administration has the power to control all aspects of your insurance policy. If I am elected President, I will end all insurance coverage for morally objectionable acts (abortion, contraception, invitro, etc). Does the Left really want to invest this power in the Executive Branch? I know it sounds nice when you are in power but remember, you won't always be in power!"
They think Santorum's a religious nut anyway (the Left, that is). For that matter, they think the same of Romney. Maybe one of them should say it. Gingrich could do it but I don't know if anyone is still covering his campaign. He would probably be the best choice if there were any reporters in the room. For the Paul supporters, sorry. If he said it they would start to think his domestic policy (which I tend to agree with) is as odd as his foreign policy.
If Republican's would merely replay the following every day leading up the election...there wouldn't be a dry eye in the room.
The Obama administration's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkmann was standing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, defending the law requiring Americans to buy health insurance, when Judge Laurence Silberman asked her about broccoli. Specifically, he wanted to know whether a law requiring Americans to buy broccoli would exceed the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. “No,” Brinkmann said.
If Islam had been offended the administration would have bent over backwards to accomodate them. That brings up a point. Does Islamic institutions have to conform to the mandated insurance requirements too? What happens if they object on the same religious grounds as Catholics (or Christians in general)?
Christianity is the new official second citizen status.
According to the most recent Public Policy Polling survey, 57% of Catholic voters (59% of Catholic women) support the new Obama adjustment.
The GOP is way out on a limb with this one.
So be it. I don't care if the public thinks all of a sudden that free access to contraception trumps the establishment clause. This is question of constitutionality first, policy second. And in the end, the Supreme Court is going have to tell the ignorant masses who buy into this contraception mandate rubbish that it is unconstitutional in the most profound way.
Yes, yes...a poll, a poll! Don't lead, just bleat!
Poll question: Do you favor insurance companies providing FREE contaception to all americans who want it?
VS
Poll question: Do agree with obama's position that religious organizations should be forced to go against their beliefs by supporting sterilization and abortificents?
That's because it's one lie after another in regard to women's health. Free coverage of contraception and abortion doesn't mean that it's literally free. Consumers will be forced to PAY for something they don't believe in. Plus, you have mentality of one lie after another, the 'I don't believe in contraception and abortion' but I think everyone has the RIGHT to murder their own child. King Barack needs to get sacked and the Supreme Court should roll their sleeves up and restore the Constitution to its rightful place...as the yoke of the Imperial President.
