At yesterday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney offered some revealing talking points about the profoundly wrongheaded and illegal HHS contraception mandate.
JAY CARNEY: [T]his decision was made after careful consideration by Secretary Sebelius, and we believe that the proposal strikes the appropriate balance between religious beliefs on the one hand and the need to increase access to important preventive services for women.…We understand that not everyone agrees with it. All I can tell you is it was made after very careful consideration based on the need to balance those two issues and that the necessity to provide access to preventive services for women was an important consideration.
ED HENRY (FOX NEWS): What about the constitutional right to freedom of religion?
JAY CARNEY: I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here, but I would refer you to others to discuss that.
Which scenario is more troubling: that the White House knows perfectly well that there are “constitutional rights issues” involved but for nakedly partisan reasons they deny it? Or that they really, honestly believe that in contemplating a coercive action, government bureaucrats can judge the merits of religious beliefs without any thought to “constitutional rights issues”?
— Stephen P. White is a fellow in the Catholic Studies Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. and the coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society.
To them, "constitutional" is a political question and nothing more. If the policy has a political outcome they desire, they deem it constitutional. If a policy favors a political opponent, they call it unconstitutional.
Troubling enough. And then they get the vapors whenever someone urges that maybe we should enforce the constitution as ratified.
They're utterly dishonest, and they're in charge of enforcing the law. Troubling indeed!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm. What, specifically, IS the 'Constitutional-rights' issue here?
Your response doesn't say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedo you think that was a witty little comment?? it actually makes you look like the stupidest commenter ever on the internet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think that comment was particularly witty, since you asked. It was a serious question. Do you have an answer for it? I would be interested in knowing what the answer would be.
As an aside, I actually am of the opinion that failure to properly capitalize words at the beginning of sentences happens to make one look worse than inconvenient questions. Wouldn't you agree?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid that "failure to properly capitalize" get the big points on the Harvard debate team, TheFlush?
We call your phrase "The Redundant Tautological Pantzing Attempt Fail" around here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wouldn't know - I attended a state school. I can tell you that we didn't get points on our debate team for pointing out grammatical errors in our opponent's style.
I would still like to hear anyone's attempt at answering my initial question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I can tell you that we didn't get points on our debate team for pointing out grammatical errors in our opponent's style."
picked it up in the street, eh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse^
^
^
^UNCAPITALIZED PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Assuming this is an honest question, and that you've missed the last several days of posts and discussion on this issue, the Constitutional issue is fairly straightforward.
HHS and the Obama administration are asserting the authority to determine rules for health-care insurance provided to employees of religious institutions, organizations, and businesses. Whether or not the adherents of a given religion object to insurance plans that provide particular benefits.
Critics argue that this 'authority' is a blatant violation of First Amendment protections, and that no religious institution, organization, or business can or should be forced to provide benefits or services that violate the tenets of the religion.
Example: The Catholic Church believes it is a sin to have an abortion. A privately-run Catholic school currently provides health-care insurance to its staff and faculty. This insurance plan does not offer coverage for abortions. HHS now argues that the 'rights' of the employee outweigh the religious objections of the school, and will force the school to either (A) change insurance plans to include coverage for abortions despite religious objections to the procedure, or (B) pay a stiff fine per employee per year of non-compliance, or (C) drop all insurance benefits entirely.
TL;DR: Does the Executive Branch of the Federal Government have the Constitutional authority to force a religious institution, organization, or business to provide services/benefits that are in direct conflict with the beliefs of that religion?
HHS says yes. Carney says 'oh, we thought about it'. I say HHS and Carney are full of (censored).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF . . . "
Clear it up for ya, zippy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"All I can tell you is it was made after very careful consideration based on the need to balance those two issues and that the necessity to provide access to preventive services for women was an important consideration."
-Obama's way or the highway. That's balance we've come to expect from the Great Admonicator.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think this is constitutional even apart from the religious aspects. But, the government has gotten used to forcing private companies and individuals to do its bidding. Why should religion be exempt with this attitude?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am pretty certain there is settled SCOTUS precedent on a related matter that makes this a slam dunk for the hospitals.I just don't understand why Obama picked this fight now, perhaps to placate his PP advocates who are getting drilled big time at the moment with the shroud being lifted from their real practices.
If I can find the case I will try and post it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was the employment discrimination case just settled - and it was close to or was unanimous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you really believe that this is not a test before taking your guns, your free speech, your right to habeas corpus, military billets and search warrants? Obama assassinates U.S. Citizens, even juveniles, without trial. Nobody cares. The military can now arrest you without warrant. Obama says who they can arrest. If the clergy doesn't lead us in this matter, perhaps the laity should resist. Are you not paying attention folks?
No bibles in military hospitals, no religious services at Houston Veterans Cemetery. What did you expect?
Obama has been telling your since 2007, were you not listening?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs this what professor Obama taught his classes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoesn't this flap with Catholics mean Obama is probably going to lose AZ, NM, CO, NV and FL now? Last time I checked about 99% of Hispanics were Catholic . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt is Catholic...
"In the GOP primary, Romney beat Gingrich, 54-29 percent, among Hispanic voters, the largest minority in the state, exit polling showed. He won among Florida’s Cuban-American voters, considered the most consistently GOP-allied. And Romney also beat Gingrich, 52-23 percent, among non-Cuban Hispanics who turned out Tuesday."
“Romney’s strength with Hispanics in Florida should be a concern for the White House,” wrote Tom Jensen, director of the Democratic Party-affiliated firm Public Policy Polling, in an e-mail to RCP. “Unlike in most states, they’re a swing voting group in Florida, and if they’re comfortable with Romney, that could make the difference in handing him the state in November.” External Link
'Obama Struggling In Battleground States' External Link
"...his numbers in North Carolina (44/49 approve/disapprove) and Florida (44/48 approve/disapprove) and even Georgia (45/48 approve/disapprove) aren't good...
"The bad news: His job approval ratings in the other battleground states are solidly underwater and, in many states, worse than publicly perceived. In Colorado, seen as a gateway to aggressively contesting the Southwest, Obama scored a net -12 job approval (40/52) throughout the year. In Nevada, also seen as a major bellwether, Obama has a 41 percent approval rating, with 50 percent of respondents disapproving. In the critical battleground state of Ohio, 50 percent of voters disapprove of his performance, with only 42 percent approving. In the must-win state of Pennsylvania, Obama's job approval is underwater, with 45 percent approving and 48 percent disapproving.
"Some unpleasant surprises abound for the Obama campaign, too. New Mexico has been seen as a Democratic-leaning state because of its voting history and significant Hispanic population. But Obama's performance there -- 42 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable -- isn't much different than his weak standing in the other Southwestern battlegrounds. The Obama campaign has been arguing it has an outside shot at contesting Arizona, but his approval rating is at 40 percent, with 52 percent disapproving.
"In New Hampshire, a state that John Kerry carried in 2004, Obama's job approval is at 39 percent, with 54 percent disapproving. It's a state that, with Romney heading the GOP ticket, is starting to look out of reach
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePay No Attention to the Constitution Behind the Curtain
I like that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is perhaps even more troubling is that many of our religious leaders essentially conceded or chose not to fight over whether "preventive services for women" suggest that pregnancy is a disease. By not fighting this earlier Catholic leaders and others suggested that this classification is OK as long as it doesn't compromise our consciences. So now, sensing weakness and a retreat from the public square, the secularist left says, well we will push you back a little further and not allow you to even define religious activity. Of course they began that in earnest at the beginning of the Obama administration when they started to refer to "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse