If the federal government can succeed in forcing people to violate their faith, it will have the power to force anyone to do anything.
It is therefore sad but not surprising that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius took to USA Today this week to spin rather than explain her boss’s decision to force people and entities all over the country to fund abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization against their consciences.
Secretary Sebelius makes her case to the American people by misrepresenting the facts in what can only be described as deception by omission. She tells the American people that the president’s mandate contains an exemption for “religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith.”
This is simply false, and it goes to the heart of Sebelius’s sales pitch that her mandate is somehow broadly accommodating to religion when its exemption, in fact, covers almost no one.
The mandate explicitly does not exempt groups merely if they primarily hire members of their own faith. It forces those groups to violate their beliefs, unless they also primarily serve persons of their own faith. So a Christian hospital would have to turn aside Jews and Muslims at the door to be “religious enough” under the president’s aggressively secular policy.
But that’s not the end of the Sebelius smokescreen. Her mandate refuses to exempt even this hypothetical “Bad Samaritan Hospital,” unless it additionally is a church, a religious order, or an integrated activity of the same. Thus HHS considers it not-religious-enough for a group of people to form an association around their religious beliefs if that group is not formally acting as a church. And religions that aren’t organized into churches or religious orders don’t have a prayer under this administration’s emaciated view of religion.
Sebelius’s misrepresentation does not end there. Under the HHS mandate, “Bad Samaritan Hospital of the First Apostle Church of Kalamazoo” would still not qualify as a “religious entity” because it does not have “the” purpose of inculcating its religious beliefs. It has the purpose of curing the sick. So, according to the administration, the only thing that counts as a religious activity is explicit evangelization. Religious believers who get together to serve the community only delude themselves into thinking they are doing something religious. Our secular overlords know better.
Sebelius goes on to claim that “our rule has no effect on the longstanding conscience clause protections,” when in fact her bureaucrat-enacted mandate is a blatant violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by President Clinton. Under RFRA, the federal government is prohibited from substantially burdening anyone’s religious belief unless they have a compelling interest and no less burdensome option. The mandate has an obvious alternative: convince Congress to fund free abortifacients and contraception directly instead of forcing employers to pay for it. Since the administration could never pass such a measure democratically, it has chosen to violate the most important conscience protection in statutory law today.
Sebelius concludes by promising that the mandate will not affect longstanding laws that protect doctors from prescribing contraception. But Sebelius is contradicting herself. One year ago she rescinded President Bush’s regulations to enforce those same laws because she said the regulations might protect a doctor from being forced to provide contraception. Sebelius was worried such regulations could “negatively impact patient access to contraception.” In that rescission, and a few days ago, she declared that even where a “contraceptive” device kills a human embryo before implantation, it doesn’t count as “abortion” under conscience laws. Thus Sebelius has rescinded and minimized the very kinds of protections she claims her new mandate respects.
The HHS mandate contains the tiniest definition of religion in the history of federal law. It is consistent with the president’s attempts to pressure-shrink religion within many aspects of his administration, such as in a recent Supreme Court case where he unsuccessfully argued that the government can interfere with the hiring of religious teachers because education is essentially a secular activity. The Court didn’t buy that, and no one should buy what Sebelius is selling either. This radical agenda seeks to take religious-freedom protections away from believers if they dare to step outside their church walls, and it is already encroaching on their freedom inside.
The Left’s siege on churches has begun. It’s time for a sortie.
— Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor who held various posts in the departments of Justice and Interior during the Reagan administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
I'm gettin' tired of hearing sermons to the choir.
We know all this here at NRO.
It's the rest of the country that needs to hear it.
When are we going to get essays like this into mainstream media?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe MMS isn't a community bulletin board where anyone can get an article on the front page of the New York Slimes. The MMS is an arm of the Left, and the Left has no interest in putting the other side of this issue in the forefront of the American consciousness, so it will not. Even quasi-friendly news venues, like Fox News, are still beholden to the 60 second slot format that prevent any and all substantive discussion on any topic whatsoever. Lesser-read conservative papers like the Washington Times and Washington Examiner have been all over it.
Let's face it. The Left has framed the argument like this "Free Birth Control vs Fascists!" and that's the way it will play out in the MMS until the end. Never mind that forcing religious organizations to do something against their faith is fascist, and never mind that curbing liberties is fascist, and never mind that the birth control isn't just birth control, and never mind that it isn't FREE.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSigh. I know. I guess I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired, y'know?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery Catholic - no every religious - no every principled - private organization in the country should declare that due to the HHS ruling, they are immediately suspending all health care benefits and provision of services regulated by the government in any way. Conscience and liberty first.
Go on strike.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat next? After this, the government might even take your tax dollars and spend it on a war that goes against your religious beliefs!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou moron, this isn't about spending tax revenue in a manner you'd prefer it not be spent. It's is about mandating a violation of personal freedom in a manner that not only has no basis of authority under the Constitution, but is in actually in direct violation of the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuh. And yet in 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia had no problem with the government forcing people to violate their faith:
External Link
I guess that for conservatives, certain religions are more equal than others...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey weren't prevented from using peyote for themselves, they were precluded from advising others to do so. Peyote, being labelled a controlled, dangerous substance, is criminalized.
The captcha I got was cheese burger. In order for your analogy to be, well, analogous, the decision would have had to require a Hindu to eat a cheeseburger (or, perhaps, a muslim or Jew to eat a bacon cheeseburger). Free exercise of religion has some limitiations. If your religion required human sacrifice, for example, your free exercise would likely be frowned upon. Fortunately for you, as is evidenced by the fact that we have this Obomination as President, the stupidity to which you religiously cling is not outlawed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"it will have the power to force anyone to do anything."
That has been the goal of liberals from the beginning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNothing must be greater than the State.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If the federal government can succeed in forcing people to violate their faith, it will have the power to force anyone to do anything."
-and if we can't believe in God we can believe in nothing, as scheduled.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh boy, the twatter panel is in place to provide disconnected hyperbolic phrasing dead-ended in an abandoned search for meaning...
Unload that BS and be adults- Alec Baldtwit twerps every day, that's the company you're keeping.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course it is offensive and totalitarian for the gov't to force religious organizations to comply with this mandate. But why should *any* organization be forced to comply? This law won't be ok if it ends up that religious organizations are granted exemptions. For the government to be mandating contraception coverage, which is not exactly the same thing as health care*, to ANY company or organization is a serious, serious assault on liberty.
*Yes, I would love to see gov't out of healthcare altogether, but we need to realize that each one of these steps is an order of magnitude greater infringement on liberty than the last.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid Axelrod is likely muttering right now, "How the heck can we throw Jean Sibelius under Obama's bus and make it look like an accident?"
I reckon Axelrod, Plouffe & Co. have belatedly realized that Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer Sibelius has not only stepped into a big steaming pile of dog doo but also tracked it all over the White House carpets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a startling contrast, check out the President's Notre Dame commencement address. That was spring 2009, while Obamacare was still pending. He needed as broad a coalition as possible to get it passed, so he had to pretend to respect Catholic positions. Now that the Bishop's Conference and the Stupak Democrats have helped drag it across the finish line, he and Secretary Sebelius can drop the pretense. Here's the kind of thing that he was saying back in the day:
"Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women. Those are things we can do. (Applause.)"
Like Speaker Pelosi said, we, and especially the President's allies on the Catholic left, had to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
Transcript of the Notre Dame speech:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"rather than explain her boss’s decision to force people and entities all over the country to fund abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization against their consciences."
The Constitution (and case law) protects people from being forced to *do* something they don't like, but there is no protection against being forced to *fund* something they don't like. Citizens who object to war on religious grounds can become conscientious objectors, but they cannot get out of paying the taxes that fund that war. Citizens who object to the death penalty have no recourse; they cannot avoid funding it, and cannot avoid its imposition even when a relative is a victim (they can make a statement, but the court does not have to heed it). It's perfectly in line with these principles for Catholics to decline to *provide* services to which they object. Funding them is another matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow perhaps you could explore the differences between using general tax revenue to fund legitimate governmental pursuits such as national defense and law enforcement and compelling a private employer to pay for and supply a product it does not wish to provide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are aware that we are talking about the provision of benefits paid for by the employer on behalf of the employee and not about taxation, are you not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis whole issue is a bit of a moot point- if you took away every Catholic who has had an abortion or who uses contraceptives, the Catholic church would be one of the smallest organized religion in the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be careful at overestimating the significance of those "Catholics who have used birth control" numbers.
1. I've never heard it explained whether that 98% are all "disagrees with the Church and continually uses birth control in defiance of church teaching" or includes "used a condom a few times in high school and still feels guilty about it" as well as "used birth control pills for a medical condition as is permissible under Church law." Big difference.
2. You may privately be irritated by your mom's strange quirks, but you'd defend her to the death if someone outside the family attacked her. To Catholics, the Church is their mother.
3. You don't have to be an obedient Catholic, or even a Catholic at all, to be furious and frightened over the HHS overreach. I'm a contracepting Lutheran and I've got my dukes squarely up, as have many of my Protestant brothers and sisters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse