The most evil thing about the Obama administration’s recent violation of the separation of church and state is its deceptiveness. With his order requiring inclusion of contraception and abortifacient drugs in insurance coverage, the president is smuggling the hidden premises of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other supporters of abortion into U.S. law, and doing so untruthfully.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) instruction attacking religious institutions such as hospitals, universities, and programs for the poor rests on four hidden premises.
Advertisement
(1) The first deception is that the president has issued a “contraception mandate.” It is not that; it is a presidential power grab. No state or other jurisdiction is trying to ban contraception. Neither the Catholic Church nor any other religious body is trying to ban contraception. The means of contraception are even more widely available than in drugstores; one can pick up condoms in restrooms, even in restaurants. The reason for this deception is to make opponents appear to be doing something they are not. They are not banning contraception. It is dishonest to focus on contraception instead of on the real issue, the attempt to extend presidential power into areas constitutionally forbidden to it.
The genius of this deception is its explicit attack on the Catholic Church. This tactic was aided by the Church’s long and well-known moral disapproval of contraception, as an artificial barrier between a man’s and a woman’s complete self-giving. Yet the Church does not try to ban contraception even among its own congregants, only to teach that it is morally wrong, because it reveals a self-absorbed form of love.
In this way, by distorting Church doctrine, the president and his enablers in the press masked his power grab of forcing conscientious objectors to pay for contraception. The press also masked his violation of the Constitution in defining which religious bodies are religious, according to his ideas. Beginning with George Stephanopoulos, most of the press has been a delighted accomplice in misdescribing the issue.
(2) The second deception is that sterilization, contraception, abortifacients — and by logical extension, at the proper hour, abortion — are not matters of private choice, but matters of women’s health. This definition is then expanded into an enforceable right to women’s health. This supposed right is then expanded into a duty upon others to pay for the private choices and values systems of some women. In other words, this is naked coercion in its most deceptive form, and an illicit and twisted use of rights talk.
Pregnancy is a disease? The destruction of an individual human being within, boy or girl, is a matter of women’s health?
(3) The third hidden premise is that President Obama has the power to make laws respecting the self-understanding of churches. Caesar says that only houses of worship and their ministers count as “church” — so now we see the symbolic meaning behind Obama’s use of the columns of ancient pagan temples at his nomination in 2008. He was dreaming of Caesar. And now he is Caesar, lusting for power over what belongs to Caesar, but also over what belongs to God.
But the Catholic Church, like all Christian churches, has always regarded hospital work and work for the poor and higher education as religious works, essential to true religion. True religion, Deuteronomy teaches, is to care for the widow and the orphan.
Historically, the mother of hospitals, orphanages, schools, and publicly organized systems of assistance to the poor was the Church itself. These things were the Church living vitally in its own members. From the first, the Church was taught by Our Lord Himself to care for prisoners, and the hungry and the thirsty, and the naked, and the ill and the burdened.
Everything this administration does has one goal: CONTROL of everything in our lives, period.
They are just as foolish as all others in history who wanted total control - eventually this totalitarian behavior dies but not without major bloodshed on the part of many innocents.
It is my sincere hope that O and company are soundly defeated in November, 2012.
"Yet the Church does not try to ban contraception even among its own congregants, only to teach that it is morally wrong, because it reveals a self-absorbed form of love."
It's a sad day when a magazine writer does better than the Catholic fathers explaining the philosophy behind the Churches position on contraception. I wonder what WFB would have said about all this? Baaarack Obama would have been about an inch high once Mr. Buckley finished with him.
You missed the reference: Stalin purportedly said of the Church's political influence, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Swap "health care bureaucrats" for "divisions," and you may see the reference.
A great article. I would only add that all citizens should regard this as a shot over the bow warning us that under Obamacare all freedoms, religious or otherwise, individual or corporate, will eventually be under assault by the federal government. Obamacare, and its authors, must go.
With Obama care our entire health care becomes a political issue. Have we forgotten Clinton's surgeon general Dr Elders arguing why aids reseach was more important then heart research? What is more important - Contraceptive services or Cancer treatment. These are now our choices and the correct answer is to count votes.
This is a losing proposition for republicans and they should stop pushing it. The mandate has broad bi-partisan support. It lowers overall welfare payments and prison costs, and as a libertarian, I support that.
If the party wants to alienate women forever, then this is a good plan. If they ever want to win again, they should drop it.
No libertarian could possibly support Obamacare, much less Obama's appalling attack on the First Amendment.
You assert that Obama's mandate has "broad bi-partisan support." Hitler's policies on Jews had broad support in Germany in the 1930s. Did that make them right?
Obama's attack on the Catholic Church and freedom of conscience in general is not right whether or not some short-sighted people support it now.
The only Catholics that care are the people in charge.
Second, Hitler's policies did not enjoy broad bipartisan support. He was just in charge of the ruling party. I am fairly sure the communists in the Reich did not support their own extermination.
Finally, your moral opposition doesn't unprove the point that this will cost the GOP voted. Lose on principle if you want to, but then you'll just be a loser.
I am not in charge of anything but my own soul, and I care. You will find many Catholics and persons of other faiths who care. Plenty of Catholics know the teaching is true and violate it. Yet they oppose this power grab. Your poll numbers are old. More people oppose Obama's mandate than oppose it. As more people receive the correct information, rather than Obama's version that Catholics want to take away your birth control, they will understand that we should not be forced to pay for someone's recreational sex.
Whether Hitler's policies did or did not receive broad bipartisan support (there were multiple parties), he got the necessary votes through intimidation (remind you of anyone) to thwart the will of the people (what percentage is in favor of Obamacare?).
I always thought that the first tenet of libertarianism was to focus on liberty. The regulation inhibits liberty. It reduces the choice of individuals who would rather not have contraceptives, abortifacients, etc. included in their health insurance plan and premiums. It reduces the freedom of employers to offer the insurance they support to their employees. Their employees can choose to take the insurance or buy their own currently. If employers drop insurance plans so as not to violate their conscience then the employees will only have the option of purchasing whatever is available on the exchange and they won't get the tax privileges associated with getting it through their employer.
If the government can tell you that you must buy health insurance and what kind of insurance you must buy it doesn't matter whether the move is popular or not or if it saves money or not. The principle exists that the government can tell you what to do. Suppose in twenty years some scientist develops a gene therapy vaccine that "cures" homosexuality or "fixes" the gene for aggression so that those who receive the vaccine are 75% less likely to commit a crime and never want to own a gun. What, other than perhaps public opinion, is to stop the government from mandating that access to the vaccines be provided free of charge under all insurance plans. Something tells me that the Human Rights Campaign and the NRA might object to having to pay for those under their insurance premiums. Technically you've expanded the choices of the insured by giving them "free" access to treatments they might not be able to afford on their own.
Bottom-line when you force someone, against their conscience, to pay money to offer others choices you're being despotic not libertarian.
Since when is birth control a medical condition that needs to be covere by insurance all of a sudden? this is not a medical condition requiring medical attention. If someone doesn't have birth control does this mean they need to be treated? Up to now individuals took responsibility for their actions. Don't have sex or if you do use a condom.
Insurance should cover medical conditions, not individual decisions.
