Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth-control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation, and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.
The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.
Advertisement
Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups — Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold — to hail the alleged compromise, and hand Obama a major political victory.
Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth-control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia governor Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would go to jail rather than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.
A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.
On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.
Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:
First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals, and charities are not “religious,” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.
But they have forgotten Dorsai, Among the pressures of risng costs and diminishing opportunities Americans are turning inward to maintain their personal concerns and have forgotten leviathan and it's inevitable consequences.
The presidential candidates will know all they need to know about why Obamacare needs to be abolished if they simply read Mr. Krauthammer's scholarly treatise on the subject. One needn't even be a lawyer to figure it out.
The first commenter is correct, too; almost every thinking being in the country knew Obamacare was an abomination from the beginning.
Free? Everybody likes free stuff and nobody likes those mean insurance companies. Plus, one half of Americans have a below average IQ and most of the rest don't understand the complicated words, phrases and concepts Mr. Krauthammer tosses around so confusingly. Thats why American's will once again vote for the guy with the winning smile who keeps promising free stuff. Never mind that in a few more years we will be begging the North Koreans to send us free coal so we can sit comfortably in our caves watching the windmills rust.
Mr. Krauthammer's column makes an important observation. The legitimate concerns about the religious liberties aspect of the Administration's actions on contraceptive services needs to be raised, pursued, and resolved in favor of religious liberty. But, the defense of the important First Amendment religious liberty concerns should not obscure the important Fifth Amendment due process issues also raised by the Administration's actions, which include serious questions of the President's claims of authority to act under his Presidential powers (Article II of the U.S. Constitution).
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 constitutional basis for the Presidential/Executive Branch assertion of such authority and 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 (Article II of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the basic powers of the President of the United States) 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 Presidential or Executive Branch authority is authorized by federal law, 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.
See my earlier comment on a National Review editorial at External Link
It is the Affordable Care Act itself that authorizes the President and his commissars to do all of the taking ("the Secretary shall ..."). We, through our representatives, are legislating away our liberties. As John Adams said, "This Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".
Excellent, Jodie. "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people...." Can we say that too many of our citizens have passed on morals and religion? Like, who needs all that 'feel guilty stuff!' Just gimme my cell phone, my home, my car, my drugs, my health care, my .....fill in the blanks........ me..my..me..my. Don't need to bother about anything else.
I'm not convinced that this pseudo-compromise and the handful of naifs who bought it have given Obama a political victory, since people are still livid over the subject and since it's simply too soon for that sort of evaluation.
This isn't the first time that I believe Krauthammer has been entirely too hasty, not only to reach conclusions about the politics of a particular fight, but to present what may be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy that the cunning Obama has won the day.
Krauthammer tends to be at his best when he's arguing for what's right, and he's at his worst when he's handicapping horseraces.
I agree. Krauthammer's point in this article was the first thing I thought of even before the phony compromise, and I stated it several times on this site. I believe people are getting wise to this administration's true agenda - and they don't like it.
I sure hope you're right, but I fear that too many are still duped by the president and he will be re-elected. Couple that with the possible nomination of Santorum, and the mobilization of 18+ year old women, who will be told that their rights to contraception and abortion will be taken from them if he becomes president, will be staggering. We have a serious uphill climb against a president who, by all rights, should be easy to beat.
Keep in mind that Romney will have the all the same lies read about him and all the same people mobilized against him. It matters not that he is the epitome of "fiscal conservative and social liberal" (which also has and will dampen enthusiasm for him among the Republican rank and file).
Think: At what other point in our history and with what other politician has the truth mattered so little? Obama can say anything he wants about anyone. It will matter not at all to his feminist or abortion-industry supporters (or to any other of his constituent groups, on any issue) what his opponent's actual stances are. For these people, his stances are what Obama says they are. They will be just as mobilized against any Republican nominee. Who that nominee is matters not.
You're letting fear cloud your judgment. That is what will cause Obama's reelection.
I agree with most of your points, however, there will be much more audio and video of Santorum backing what will be said about him. Romney? Not so much. Santorum is a died-in-the-wool so-con. Romney only says he is to pander to the Republican base. As far as my fear clouding my judgement and causing Obama's re-election, nothing will keep me from going out and voting for whomever our nominee is. (My wife will cancel that vote when she votes for O, but that's a topic for another forum) I'm just calling it like I see it. Obama's decision to introduce the HHS mandate at this time was a shrewd political move designed, in my view, to change the theme of the election from the economy to social issues where he thinks he can win and, sadly, he may be right. Abortion is one thing, as more and more people identify as pro-life. Contraception is quite another as 98% of women either use it or have used it at some time.
CK wrote: "Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument."
You wrote: "Obama's decision to introduce the HHS mandate at this time was a shrewd political move designed, in my view, to change the theme of the election from the economy to social issues where he thinks he can win and, sadly, he may be right."
Obama will continue to hurl red herrings at the media to distract voters from the lousy economy he's created -- and the media will continue to gobble them up. It is disgusting how the liberal media enable this nonsense. Whomever the GOP nominee is will be fighting on two fronts this summer and fall.
I hope you're right. Still, it's disheartening to see the eagerness with which some people and institutions have now accepted this fig leaf of an "accommodation," which in itself is almost as bad a provocation as the original mandate.
However I believe what the media is attempting to do is lead their audience to the conclusions they want embraced. These heathen in the press are too enraptured with their own sense of self to concern themselves with trivial notions of faith, family, and tradition.
I agree. It's way too early to call this a victory for Obama, and if anything the early evidence shows a very strong negative reaction that I think will hurt Obama in the long run.
Follow
