The Obama administration will take a half step back from its drive to transform the U.S. from a constitutional republic into an entitlement state by amending the free-birth-control regulation to follow with the so-called Hawaii Rule, in other words, the objecting employer will not have to pay for the birth-control coverage but will be required to tell employees where and how they can obtain it. The Left will object, halfheartedly — after all, there is an election to be won. And I believe the firestorm set off by the administration will abate. Time will tell whether voters remember their anger in November.
But let us not forget the bigger picture here. The free-birth-control rule brouhaha shows (among other actions and advocacies) that:
1. The Obama administration is antithetical to religion being exercised in the public square and seeks to shrink “freedom of religion” into “freedom of worship.”
2. Obamacare has centralized tremendous powers into the hands of the executive, and the law is now a tool for forcing the private sector to pay for entitlements wanted by favored Obama constituency groups with the funds of the private sector.
3. This is just the beginning of the outrages Obamacare will unleash. Wait until the IPAB and cost/benefit boards kick into high gear and the utilitarian bean counters start picking winners and losers in the health-care system.
On the positive side, I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court may have watched this. There can no longer be any doubt that the administration intends to use the concentration of power it obtained in the Affordable Care Act in an arrogant and hubristic manner. If the Supreme Court finds Obamacare unconstitutional, it might be because this brief political explosion woke the justices up to the real and present dangers posed to American liberty by Obamacare.
— Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a legal consultant for the Patients Rights Council.
First they came for the Catholics,...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"2. Obamacare has centralized tremendous powers into the hands of the executive, and the law is now a tool for forcing the private sector to pay for entitlements wanted by favored Obama constituency groups with the funds of the private sector."
Favored constituency groups? You mean Women? The vast - overwhelming - majority of whom use these services and support access to these services? Even within the religious groups in question who supposedly oppose this rule?
You guys crack me up sometimes
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven if 100% of the women in these organizations used Birth Control and the employer didn't want to pay for it, they should not be forced to. I'm sure 100% of the employees have lied, that doesn't make unethical behavior in the workplace OK. In their way of thinking Birth Control is a sin, doesn't matter that we are all sinners, they don't have to subsidize the sin by recognizing it exists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour argument is narrow and shortsighted. Also, you are annoying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd they can pay for it themselves. I'm unaware of any sort of national crisis in obtaining the pill.
Your right to free speech does not presume a right to make me pay for your internet connection.
The United States Constitution expressly forbids the Government from preventing the free exercise of religion. You may not agree with that religion. In fact, many Catholics do not agree with their own church's teachings on the matter. But the Government gets absolutely zero say in it. Your only "say" in it comes down to whether or not you wish to become a member of the Catholic Church. Don't like it? Leave. That's called freedom of religion.
My weekly donations to the local parish and to the diocese support Catholic schools, hospitals and chartities throughout the area. I do not give Barack Obama the right to decide that my religious contributions will be used to provide the services that he has dictatorially decided that my church must provide.
To Mr. Smith's broader point, the Supreme Court, 9-0, rejected the Obama Administration's claim that the State, not the religious group, has the authority to choose a church's leaders. This little dust-up is a clear-cut example of the State's desire to dictate the bounds of religion to bend to the will of the State, and it will play a role in the decision this summer. This mandate shows that Barack Obama wishes to institute his own rules for Catholicism to meet his own definition of what constitutes appropriate, government-approved, religious belief.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, not women. The term you are looking for is feminazi.
Big diff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yes, the old argument that if a lot of people use something, then the govt must provide it for free.
Is there any logical fallacy that liberals won't use?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy "favored constituencies" it ws meant Feminists, not Women. The Feminists don't speak for all women, they may speak for all womyns.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust remember Fish - when you grant the president the power to select the insurance coverage for "Women" the next presiden may not be so favorable to your position. If Obama can dictate these "services" must be covered, Romney can just as easily dictate that none of these "services" will be covered.
Fish, you crack me up on how you can so willingly support facism when you agree with the facist, but what will you do when the dictator turns on you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree, and as Wesley Smith says, "after all, there is an election to be won." I just hope everyone remembers: Whatever "compromise" or "accommodation" Obama has made - regardless of whether it's genuine or not (and I have no doubt it won't be), he is only making it with his re-election in mind. Can you imagine what he would do if he gets a 2nd term and doesn't need to be concerned with re-election?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Hawaii rule isn't going to cut it. Bishops cannot accept the Hawaii rule, because the Hawaii rule would force to Bishops to tell women where to go to get contraception. They're not going to do that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery policy grab enacted this way can be reversed the same way. If the Supremes fail, perhaps the best way to get rid of this will be for the next R administration to require abstinence education, ultrasounds, adoptions, etc. How long will take for the D's to complain about the unconstitutional overreach?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's all about giving another constiuency another entitlement that you can never get rid of..another step closer to socialized medicine. Why is that women aren't expected to provide for their own choices? All this chatter about women's health and not providing contraceptives is of course bunk. Are there any commentators mentioning the unfairness of expecting all males, and especially poor males having to foot the bill for rich women who get contraceptives and abortions with no co-pay? How about my preventive health care.........pay for my gym membership.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama has asserted that govt has the right to force people to buy whatever the govt wants them to buy.
Just because Obama decides not to excercise that power, for now, is not evidence that he has given up on excercising that power. It's just that the political costs are too high.
The problem is not whether or not Obama excercises the asserted power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem is that Obama has asserted that power at all.
The bean counters already pick winners and losers in health care. If you believe otherwise, you've never dealt with an insurance company.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If the Supreme Court finds Obamacare unconstitutional . . ."
From your lips to God's ears.
:-D
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse