Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was testifying in front of the Senate Finance Committee today to discuss the president’s 2014 budget. Utah senator Orrin Hatch, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, took the opportunity to ask her about the HHS mandate violating the religious freedom of voters and institutions who have faith-based opposition to birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization service.
Hatch asked Sebelius if HHS had any analysis to back up the administration’s claim that the mandate is not an assault on constitutional or statutory religious-liberty protections. Short answer? Nope. She didn’t even ask the administration’s own Department of Justice for one. Nor did she reply to a letter Hatch sent her July and one 27 senators sent in October asking about it.
Hatch asked: “I wrote you last July that your proposed contraceptive mandate would be ‘an affront to the natural rights to life, religious liberty and personal conscience.’ I note for the record that your response to my letter completely ignored this issue. Last October, 27 Senators joined me in writing you again, asking for any analysis requested or obtained by HHS regarding these religious liberty issues. The response from your department completely ignored that request. There were 27 of us who asked for it. The President’s Chief of Staff and Press Secretary have claimed that this mandate is consistent with the First Amendment, and the final rule you issued last Friday states that it is consistent with the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was the bill that I brought to the Congress. Let me just ask you again, did HHS conduct or request any analysis of the constitutional or statutory religious freedom issues?”
Sebelius responded: “Well we certainly had our legal department look at a whole host of legal issues.”
Hatch asked: “Did you ask the Justice Department?”
Sebelius responded: “I did not. No sir.”
The secretary also admitted that she did not consult with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops before she stood with the president Friday with a supposed “accommodation.” That “accommodation” was unsatisfactory, of course … as is the new precedent that religious belief is something the federal government exists to accommodate rather than protect in America!
So what?
Let me know when Hatch and his (R) pals decide to do anything substantial about these tyrants. Would be nice some election day when I punch that button not to be embarrassed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZzzzzzzz. Put a sock in it already. Issue over. Resolved. Finis! Move onto the next manufactured outrage, please.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid they already have the vote where we traded in the Constitution for free goodies?
I must have missed it.
Last I checked, religious freedom is a Constitutional right. The right to government-subsidized sex is not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse65% of registered voters agree with Obama on this. It's over except for the posturing.
A cynic might suggest Obama gambled he could stir up conservative ire and remind independents of 2010, when "Jobs, jobs, jobs" overnight morphed into "Abortion, abortion, abortion". A lot of people haven't forgotten that.
Obama's 'accomodation' on this is looking like chump change to pay. He's managed to hang the Far Right albatross around Romney's neck, and the management consultant can't quite manage how to get it off.
.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo 65% of registered voters now trumps unalienable rights?
Keep that in mind when they come violate yours.
And come they will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuestion: does it violate my "inalienable rights:" to make me pay taxes that fund things like the war in Iraq, torture and the death penalty, all of which are contrary to my most deeply-held principles?
If not, what's the difference?
In other words, how is this not just another part of the accommodations we all need to make to live in a society where we have different views that we settle through the ballot box?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess because there is an explicit freedom of religion clause in the Constitution and not a freedom from supporting wars clause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThree problems with that:
- there are plenty of religions that would agree that the items I listed violate their teaching, including the Catholic Church (although they keep relatively quiet about it).
- if you think for only a few minutes, you can come up with infinitely more activities of government that violate the teachings of various religions.
- if it made a difference, I could easily characterize my beliefs as "religious" in a way that meets the various tests US courts have applied to determine what a religion is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, in essence, there is no religious liberty in the United States, beyond the whims of the current administration?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot at all. I'm just pointing out that "religious liberty" doesn't mean what you think it means. For example, it doesn't include the right to refuse to have your money used to pursue activities that you object to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"For example, it doesn't include the right to refuse to have your money used to pursue activities that you object to."
It means exactly that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusegbh,
False equivalency. This isn't taxes, this is the government forcing individuals and corporations to violate their religious principles by forcing them into a business transaction.
That isn't the same as taxes at all.
But I like your idea: it would be wonderful if from now on, people can have their taxes go only to the programs they support.
If that were ever enacted, conservative programs would be fully funded, but liberal ones would have nothing. Because the history is clear: liberals never give money voluntarily to anything except re-election campaigns. But conservatives give freely and generously to programs they support in principle, even when it doesn't benefit them directly.
Which is why liberals never follow through on that. They fantasize about being able to not pay for National Defense, but still able to confiscate conservative taxpayer earnings to fund their government dependency/Democrat Party raison d'etre programs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI confess to not being a theologian (anymore than I am an economist).
But I think you may be stretching to say paying taxes to a government that might then use some of that for wars that your faith would deem unjust would violate Catholic teaching.
Beyond the whole "Render unto Caesar ..." thing (its not like Christ didn't know about the Roman conquests), there are several other philosophical discussions of this sort issue that even predate Thomas Aquinas thoughts on Just War and the Principle of Double Effect.
This is NOT to say that the Iraq war was just or unjust.
And there may be religions that would specifically hold that paying taxes to a government that might go to war is unjust. I am just not aware of any and don't plan on searching for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOBQuiet - I completely agree with you. The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't any real difference between that and the contraception mandate - it's inherent in our pluralistic system that sometimes we are effectively required to pay for things that offend our consciences, and the only remedy is the ballot box.
I also don't believe that paying for contraception offends Catholic doctrine any more than paying for executions, unjust wars or torture. To the extent it's a sin, the sinner is the person that carries out the act.
I keep asking all the riled up folks to tell me what piece of scripture or canon law says I'm wrong about that, but no-one has been able to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fear you completely misunderstood my point. At least I hope you misunderstood rather than deliberately ignored it.
One is a case of indirectly funding something that may or may not be wrong( Catholics do not feel that ALL wars are unjust and therefore sinful). The other is directly funding something that your DO believe is sinful in all cases.
As to whether it offends Catholic Doctrine, I know I am not well enough versed in it to say that the Churches own leaders are wrong, How much theological study have you done? You are claiming to know more about it them they do after all. Or are you flat out calling them liars?
I suspect that Catholics would have less concern( Any Catholic theologians out there?) about a system where contraception was provided FREE directly by the government from out taxes. The argument being that there is a general good provided by paying taxes to the government and that is what you are supporting, rather than the one, specific 'evil' policy. They would almost certainly work to change that policy but the fact that it was funded though taxes would not be the issue.
On your comment about using the ballot box, I thought we had. PRFA was supposed to require the government to take the path that least interfered with religious exercise. As Ed Whelan has pointed out elsewhere, this regulation does not do that and fails almost every test the law put in place.
I really don't see what the big deal is. Why do we need this new entitlement anyway? Is there some vast shortage of contraception? Every study I have seen says that cost and availability are almost never the reasons it is not used.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't any real difference between that and the contraception mandate."
The contraception mandate seeks to force a 2,000+ year old religious institution to violate one of the most central (and steadfast) tenets of their beliefs. I can see a world of difference between that, and you having to violate your current beliefs about war via indirect funding.
I said your "current beliefs" because in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on your child's school, I can safely guess that your beliefs about war may change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere are few distinctions for you to chew on.
One, there's a difference between not agreeing with what your tax dollars go toward and not agreeing with the government telling you what you have to purchase. To miss this distinction likely is a result of the liberal mindset that thinks all money belongs to the government anyway.
Two, churches do not pay taxes.
Three, in the case of the Catholic Church, your example on not approving of war falls a bit flat. The Church does teach that waging war can be morally licit. Not so with contraception or abortion. Waging war can be in accordance with church doctrine; morning after pills never so.
So, this mandate is telling churches (and everyone else for that matter) that they must purchase something with their own money (you still agree that people actually own their own money don't you?). This alone is, well, odius to say the least. But then layer on top of that the government is also telling churches they must purchase at their own expense products and services that they find abhorent. Then there's the whole point that the products and services are for someone else entirely.
So, let's recap.
Obama is saying that the churches must spend their money on a product they find mortally sinful and give it away to someone else.
At long last sir, have you lost all sense of distinction?
Now, I've explained it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is the governments job to protect you from our enemies thus they take your taxes for this purpose.
Torture is in the eye of the beholder - stringing you up with your arms in back of you is torture, pulling off your toe nails is torture, cutting off your head is torture - pretending to drown you is not, it is uncomfortable.
If you don't like the death penalty don't commit a crime punishable by the death penalty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll beside the point, J.D. All that matters for the purposes of the illustration is that each of those things offends my conscience.
Some in this debate seem to be saying that I have the right not to have my money used to pay for things that I object to.
I am illustrating that this is not the case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can find the phrase "provide for a common defense" in the US Constitution, I don't see a word about health care. In addition to that, you may extract yourself from actively engaging in combat, if your conscience does not allow you to do so, thus the "conscientious objector" status of many during wartime.
Why can't I choose to be a "conscientious objector" in this case?
As a nation, we can't selectively defend only they who paid taxes, all must be defended, all must contribute to that defense, if there was a way for only those who opted out of paying for our national defense to be the ones killed in a terrorist assault, then I would be willing to give you the ability to opt out of paying taxes for national defense, but since that's not a possibility, you pay.
You can achieve the same basic results achieved by contraceptives by a rather simple means...behavior modification, and avoidance of activities which may bring about pregnancy. But what you are asking me to do is to fund your willingness to engage in behavior which may bring about a pregnancy, and I should not be forced to fund your risk-taking.
I respect your freedom to engage in such behavior, I just don't wish to bear the financial burden of it for you. I have a constitutionally-protected right to own a gun, and I believe that it is in all our best interest to own one, for our self-defense...you would object to my believing that you should bear any portion of the cost of my owning a gun.
Liberty is a self-funded thing.
Try it sometime.
In funding wars, the US has been responsible for stopping many more atrocities than it has ever been accused of committing, so much so that it would be hard to actually track them, and when we do abuse prisoners, we bring our own to justice.
To the best of my knowledge, we have never beheaded anyone, as Nick Berg was beheaded, and to me, even the most extreme acts of the members of our military that participated in the events we witnessed in Abu Ghraib, cannot be called torture to those of us who chose to watch the video of Nick Berg's beheading.
I felt that it was important for me to witness Nick's death, so that it would serve as a reminder, and a warning of what tolerating intolerance may bring about.
I find it ironic that you would object to the death penalty and support abortion. I guess you just want the death penalty for those guilty of nothing more than being the consequence of someone else's irresponsible behavior.
There is no one denying you access to contraceptives here, any more than the security system at your local pharmacy is denying you access to them...you need to craft a better argument when you debate this subject with intelligent individuals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse