The
Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and Laura Bassett
report on the administration’s response to congressional efforts to overturn its contraception, sterilization, and abortion-drug mandate:
Unbowed by the dust-up from last week’s contraception debate, the Obama administration has jumped feet-first into the next round.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in a statement to The Huffington Post, weighed in heavily against a toughly-worded measure being considered in the Senate that would greatly restrict women’s access to critical health care services.
Just what does this “toughly worded measure” do? Carney puts it plainly himself:
“Let’s be clear about what’s at stake,” said Carney. “The proposal being considered in the Senate applies to all employers — not just religious employers. And it isn’t limited to contraception. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. That is dangerous and it is wrong. Decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.”
So it says that any employer can decide what kind of insurance he does and doesn’t want to purchase for his employees. Sounds very tough indeed.
As Carney or his boss might say: Let’s be clear. As things stand today, employers don’t have to provide insurance coverage to their employees, though many choose to do so, and if they do so they can provide whatever kind of insurance they choose (within the constraints of existing state laws and mandates)—based on their or their employees’ preferences and needs. Obamacare will require them to provide insurance or else pay a large fine to the federal government. And under the new HHS rule, it will also require that insurance (in the case of religious and non-religious employers alike) to include coverage for contraceptive and abortive drugs and sterilization. Senator Blunt’s bill would allow employers to avoid being put in the impossible position of having to choose between providing access to services or products that violate their moral or religious convictions or paying a large fine.
Many of the bill’s supporters (though not all) would no doubt like to repeal Obamacare altogether—since the very nature of that statute means that situations like this are unavoidable. But at this point, in response to the HHS rule’s particular offense against our constitutional order, they have proposed a narrower measure that rolls back only a small portion of the law’s offenses against our basic liberties and merely
restores the conscience protections that existed before Obamacare. And even that modest measure, simply allowing employers to have some measure of control over the services they will now be compelled to purchase for their employees, is asserted by the administration to be dangerous and wrong. The idea that “any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to” is not some crime against humanity. It’s called freedom.
The White House’s reaction is yet further proof that the debate surrounding the HHS rule is about much more than religious liberty—and indeed is about much more than the HHS rule. It is about liberty as such, and the threats posed to it by Obamacare as a whole. It powerfully reinforces the case for replacing this detestable law, and for replacing its authors, with alternatives far more friendly to freedom and a properly limited government—not to mention far better able to actually address the problems with our health-care system.
As Carney says: “Decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.” Quite right. And we might add: not by a woman and her federal bureaucracy either. The desire to have those decisions be made by a woman and her doctor does not point to Obamacare. It points to a reform of our health-care system that would give individuals more options and more control, and would use robust competition among insurers and providers—rather than yet another layer of oppressive regulations—to reduce the cost and improve the quality of American health care. It points to freedom, which means it points to the need to elect a new president.
They like to use the word "access". Me not paying for your stuff is me denying you access to it, now. And this is dangerous and radical. So, remember this next time you hear the word "access" coming from the Left, like access to food, access to housing, access to employment. The fact that these things are out there and accessible by any definition of the word means nothing unless it is handed to them for "free*".
*paid for by somebody else
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYuval, by not paying my car payments you are restricting my access to a new Ferrari.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI tried to make those exact two arguments with someone weeks ago to no avail. They're just incapable of seeing it, unfortunately, because you just can't compare a car to "health care" and... i don't know why food wasn't comparable enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpeaking of which, I want to discuss an outrageous violation of my rights. I'm a big believer in the importance of eating prime rib. However, I've had to eat business lunches for several weeks now, and would you believe that my employer has not once provided me with prime rib at these lunches. They are denying me access to the meat I crave!
I need a lawyer to take my case (pro-bono of course, else I'm being denied my right to legal representation) and remedy this horrid injustice!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had the same thing happen to me at my job - except I'm a T-bone guy. Before the new owner came in I never had a problem getting reimbursed for lunch if it was tied to a sales call. But the very first time I submitted a receipt to the new owner it was rejected. I guess he's hindu and is not into paying for someone else to eat steak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZsuzsa, the government is already at work deciding what food you "need" and "deserve".
It will let you know when our new menu is ready.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike variations on Murphy's Law, or cynical definitions like those in Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary, consider the following:
I want it free, so long as someone else has to provide the freebie or pay for it.
Nothing is too expensive, so long as someone else pays the bill.
No sacrifice is too onerous, so long as someone else is making it.
Nothing is too risky, so long as someone else suffers the consequences.
Nothing is impossible, so long as someone else has to do it.
Nothing is off the table concerning budget cuts, except my benefits, my privileges, my subsidies, or my favorite causes.
What is yours is expendable or negotiable, but what is mine is not.
My rights and privileges are important and untouchable, but yours are not.
Any profits or gains I make are for me to keep myself, but any losses or financial setbacks I suffer have to be mitigated by subsidies, bailouts, or cost-shifting to other people.
Government intervention is OK if I benefit, but not if I suffer any adverse consequences or inconvenience.
I want a solution that is a fair and balanced approach, so long as I am not on the receiving end of any duties, obligations, sacrifices, or taxes required.
I am in favor of making hard choices now, so long as they don't adversely effect me in any way,
I'll be happy to make hard choices now, so long as they don't take effect until I've left office, or am long gone.
I'll be happy to make appealing or optimistic promises or long-range projections, so long as they will only come due long after I've left office, or am long gone.
I'll be happy to make appealing or optimistic promises or long-range projections, so long as my successors, or their successors, are left with the responsibility for making them come true.
I'll be happy to make commitments, so long as someone else has to carry them out.
I'll be happy to be generous, with other people's money.
What I want is my right or entitlement, but what you want is just being greedy or selfish.
On a more serious note: Many things are getting so bad that I find indulging in "gallows humor" is one way to try to avoid crying about the sad state of political and economic affairs in America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFace it: this manufactured "crisis" is over. Your side did not prevail. The rest of the country, Catholics included, has moved on. Time for those who reside in the Land of Make-Believe to begin ginning up the War on Easter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is a fair summation of the Left's counterpoint. Thanks for adding it to the discussion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHilarious! Just like the Obama administration, you think that sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Lalalalalala," at the top of your voice will hide the unity this affront has created between both right and left-wing Catholics. At the same time, it has greatly enhanced the unity between Catholics and Evangelicals, all of whom can see the threat here.
You tell us to get to reality. Ha! You coudn't find reality with a roadmap, a GPS and a sherpa.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe couldn't find his behind with 2 hands and flashlight, either.
:-D
CAPTCHA: NEVER QUIT.
Darn skippy!
Never quit, never give up, never surrender.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDecisions about medical care should be between the individual and her/his doctor. Decisions about medical insurance should be between a person and her/his employer. Decisions about life and death (including abortion) should be between the individual and society.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will not address your third statement because I do not know exactly what you mean by "society". And I will totally agree with your first statement.
But as to your second statement, I will not only disagree but claim that it is at the heart of any "health care crisis" we have. The correct statement should be, "Decisions about medical insurance should be between a person and his INSURER." If any solution to the "problem" exists, its solution must begin with severing health insurance from employment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAhem. I would posit that these decisions cease being "between a woman and her doctor" the moment the woman demands that someone else pay for her health care.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI assume the same goes when you have a venereal disease that you want taken care of? All medical decisions are between a man/woman and their doctor. It certainly isn't the business of the local priest or bishop or right-wing pundit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would assume that if somebody has the time and energy to contract a veneral disease, as per your example, then that person has enough time and energy to hold a job to pay for such treatment.
As long as the "local priest or bishop or right-wing pundit" (your words) aren't paying for the treatment...then yes, it certainly isn't their business.
The minute they ARE footing the bill, however, they should have a say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegarding venereal disease: You would be wrong. And stupid. Venereal diseases, tuberculosis, typhoid, and other highly-contagious, maiming or killing diseases (except, of course, AIDS) are matters of public health: the public good depends on isolating and containing the contagion and it has long been recognized that the evil of quarantining the contagion by incarcerating or forcing treatment on the host (the sick person) is less than the evil of letting the host infect others (essentially a deadly assault).
Pregnancy is not contagious. It is not even a disease. Fertility is not contagious. Broken bones are not contagious. So they are not matters of public health.
Treatment of typhoid or a venereal disease is, indeed, between the patient and his/her doctor. The fact that someone HAS typhoid or a venereal disease is a matter of public health, some of the few medical conditions that are. A typhoid host dropping a bit of dirt from his hand onto your doughnut could kill you
Thinking that contagious diseases are directly analogous to private, non-communicable conditions is sophomoric. At best. If you don't like the term "sophomore" use "Democrat" or "Progressive". All the same.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejerzeycalendars - I'm going to ask you to try to understand a simple concept. No one here thinks the Church should insert itself into medical decisions, and that's not what this issue is about. The issue that given the legality of procedures such as sterilization and abortion, while we are all obliged to abide by the law (while reserving the right to change it through democratic means), we should NOT be obliged to become active participants in these procedures by funding them with our tax dollars, providing them in employee health insurance plans, or by any other method.
In a free society, you can get any legal medical procedure you wish, but you do not have the right to compel others to pay for it, even if they have no moral objection to the procedure (say appendectomy), and this is doubly true when they DO have a moral objection (abortion, destruction of embryos). Is the light beginning to dawn on you now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd thus the smartest guy posting in the Corner -- high praise, considering competition from Steyn, Goldberg, Lowry and others -- cuts right to the chase again. This fight is all about liberty versus goodies. Do you want to get free stuff or be a free citizen? And remember: the stuff you get will never be as good as the lefties say it is; but since it's free, you have no business complaining about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou get what you pay for. And ultimately, opting for the free stuff will deliver nothing worth having, at the low, low cost of everything that matters.
Even with this law, decisions about a woman's health care are still being made by the woman and here doctor.
Freedom does not include the right to force third parties to pay for everything you want.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse