Cruz And AOC Are Coming Together On Contraception

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows and nowhere is that more true than the unlikely alliance between Texas Senator Ted Cruz and self-identified democratic socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The two, who are polar opposites in almost every way have indicated their agreement on a bill to prohibit former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists and now seem to have found common ground on birth control.

Cruz reached out to AOC yesterday on Twitter after the New York leftist tweeted that birth control should be available over the counter. Cruz responded that he agreed and offered to team up on a “simple, clean bill” that would make birth control available without a prescription.  At press time, AOC had not yet publicly responded to Cruz’s offer.

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1138840867777712128

Making birth control more readily available is an idea that makes sense. Over recent decades, out-of-wedlock births in the United States have risen dramatically. The CDC reports that births to unwed mothers now account for almost 40 percent of births. The unmarried birth rate for women under 44 is slightly higher than 40 percent.  

The reason that the government and taxpayers should care about the unmarried birth rate is that when an unmarried parent raises children, the family often qualifies for federal benefits. The growth in the entitlement state driven by single-parent families contributes to both the increasing federal deficit and the increasing American dependence on the government. Children raised in single-parent households are also more likely to have a variety of bad outcomes such as becoming a juvenile delinquent, poor performance in school, abuse alcohol or drugs, and becoming a single parent themselves.

Although the Census Bureau reported in 2016 that the majority of American children live in two-parent families, the share of children in two-parent households has fallen by about 20 points since 1960. About 23 percent of American kids live in a single-parent household headed by their mother. Of the children in two-parent households, about 99 percent live in homes where the parents are married.

The hope is that if birth control is more readily available then fewer parents will choose to have children before getting married. If birth control is available and used consistently, it might also help to reduce the number of abortions. The most common reasons given for abortion all revolve around the mother’s belief that she is not ready to have a child, i.e. abortion is being used in lieu of birth control.

One of the biggest potential problems with the increased availability of cheap birth control is that the US birth rate is already too low. The birth rate has been declining for several years and is already below the level at which the current population will replace itself. The coming population decline could have negative effects on everything from economic growth to maintaining America’s global dominance.

There might be more problems with the legalization of OTC birth control from AOC’s side of the aisle. Reason Magazine described earlier this year how, despite years of usage and research that prove the safety of birth control medications, Democrats and Planned Parenthood started resisting the idea of cheap, OTC contraception just as Republicans were warming to the idea.

This isn’t the first time that Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez have teamed up. The two have previously worked together to push for a ban on former congressmen becoming lobbyists. As with birth control, the roots of the congressional lobbying ban idea came from Twitter with Cruz responding to an AOC tweet. So far, the duo has not presented legislation to Congress.

As a conservative, I have more problems with a ban on lobbying than with cheap contraception. Even though lobbyists are never popular with voters, the profession is specifically protected by the First Amendment on two grounds. First, lobbyists enjoy the same free speech rights as other citizens and, second, the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is also included at the forefront of the Bill of Rights.

Nevertheless, I do applaud Cruz and AOC for having the courage to reach across the aisle in an environment where compromise is considered to be toxic by many. For Cruz’s part, it represents a significant departure from his “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude seen in the 2013 government shutdown. His compromises with AOC may mean that the Texas senator is maturing as a legislator.

The truth is that compromise is the only way to get things done in Washington. That’s not a bug either. It’s a feature that the framers built into the Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The authors of the Constitution wanted Americans to work together to solve their problems and make the country better, not simply denounce the other side as traitors or criminals and issue Executive Orders or national emergencies. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Administration to End Obama's Contraception Mandate

One of the most egregious examples of a federal attack on religious liberty in recent years may be about to come to an end. There are reports that the Trump Administration is preparing new regulations that will end the birth control mandate established by the Obama Administration as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The New York Times reports that new rules, which could be issued on Friday, would offer exemptions to certain employers who have moral objections to providing insurance that includes contraceptives to their employees. The new rules would reportedly cover employers and insurers who hold “sincerely held religious beliefs” or “moral convictions” against providing contraception.

The mandate was not part of the ACA, but was the product of regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services. While the Obama Administration did provide a religious exemption from the rules, Cardinal Daniel Dinardo noted in 2011, “Jesus himself, or the Good Samaritan of his famous parable, would not qualify as ‘religious enough’ for the exemption….”

Many private employers also objected to the fact that the regulation required them to purchase insurance for their employees that included not only contraceptives, but drugs that induce abortions. Others, such as employers who are Catholic, objected to contraception in general.

The mandate prompted several lawsuits. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious charity made of nuns who practice celibacy, went to the Supreme Court to seek relief from the mandate. In 2015, Hobby Lobby won its lawsuit and the government was forced to amend its rule to provide religious exemptions. In the final rule, insurers were still forced to provide coverage for these employees, but the employers were not billed for the contraceptive coverage.

President Trump promised to end the revised mandate during the campaign, but so far has not taken steps to do so. In August, Daniel Dinardo, now the Catholic Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, wrote an op-ed in The Hill asking why the Obama-era policy was still in place.

It is important to note that changing the contraception mandate will not ban contraception in any way. It would merely mean that employers would not be forced to pay for drugs that they find morally objectionable. Their employees will still be able to get birth control and abortifacient prescriptions, they would just have to bear the cost, about $50 per month, on their own.

If President Trump does decide to roll back the Obama-era mandate, he will have fulfilled an important part of his promise to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The big question is why he waited so long to do so.

Originally published on The Resurgent

GOP Ponders Killing Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate

As Republicans deal with the difficulties of rolling back the Affordable Care Act, one unpopular part of Obamacare that could be killed before the rest of the law is repealed is the contraceptive mandate. The mandate required health insurance plans to cover contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs at no out-of-pocket cost.

Unlike many aspects of Obamacare, the contraceptive mandate is not written into the text of the Affordable Care Act. The contraceptive mandate was created by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in 2011 as part of administrative rulemaking associated with the ACA. Many religious organizations were not exempted from the mandate even though they had ethical objections to providing contraceptives and abortifacients.

Ultimately, challenges to the mandate went all the way to the Supreme Court. In the Hobby Lobby decision, the Court ruled that the HHS mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and required an accommodation for the groups and companies who found the mandate immoral. In a compromise, the final HHS rule allowed companies to opt out of providing contraceptives and abortifacients in their insurance plans, but still required insurance companies to cover the drugs without a copay for employees.

Now, under the Trump Administration, there are signs that the current HHS policy may be about to change. The new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is Tom Price, a former congressman who opposed the mandate as a legislator. In a 2012 interview with Think Progress, Price said, “The fact of the matter is that this is a trampling on religious freedom and religious liberty in this country. The president does not have the power to say that your First Amendment rights go away.”

During his confirmation hearings, Price indicated that he is not opposed to contraception in general, even if he opposes the mandate. Price said, “I think contraception is absolutely imperative for many, many women and the system that we ought to have in place is one that allows women to be able to purchase the kind of contraception they desire.”

Because the contraceptive mandate was never enacted by Congress, it could be reversed by issuing a new HHS rule or an Executive Order. Administrative rules issued by agencies like HHS have the force of law, but are not subject to congressional votes.

“They could issue new guidance that says plans have more leeway to cover what they need to cover,” Laurie Sobel, associate director for women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told The Hill.

Alternatively, Republicans could include the mandate in a repeal of the Affordable Care Act to be voted on by Congress. Republicans reportedly plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act with a budget reconciliation that requires a simple majority vote. Elements of the repeal that are not included in the budget reconciliation would be subject to Democrat filibusters.

The Hill also noted that Republicans are considering making access to contraceptives easier by allowing them to be sold without a prescription. “We probably wouldn’t require that [mandate], but in doing that, we need to make them behind or across the counter,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), a former OB/GYN. “In other words, you come in [to a pharmacy], you want birth control, you get it, you go.”

It is important to note that, Obamacare does not provide for free contraception. There is no copayment or out-of-pocket cost, but there is still a price to be paid. The cost of the drugs is included in the premium for the health insurance which must still be paid by the employee or the business. In the case of religious companies that opt out, the cost must be borne either by the insurance company or spread among the other policy holders.

A solution to the problem of paying for contraception has been introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) in the form of a bill that would give consumers more control over medical spending through health savings accounts (HSAs). “Instead of having to get coverage approved from the government, an employer, or an insurance company, people will be able to use their [health savings account] funds directly for the products and services that they value,” Brat told the Daily Signal.

The Republican plans would give consumers and businesses more freedom of choice. People would have the freedom to buy health insurance policies that suit their own needs with less interference from the government. Women who want to use contraceptives would have easier access to low-cost contraceptives with pre-tax dollars from their HSA. Insurance companies would still be free to cover contraceptives without a copay if they want.

The oppressive HHS mandate can be rolled back with the stroke of a pen. The only question is what Republicans are waiting for.

Originally published on The Resurgent

What you need to know about Hobby Lobby and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

This week’s Hobby Lobby decision has brought the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that most people never knew existed, into the spotlight. The decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby could not be required to provide its employees with health insurance that covered abortifacient drugs, hinged on the obscure 1993 law.

In contrast with the thousands of pages of the Affordable Care Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is only three pages. In spite of the fact that it is the political left that is now voicing strong opposition to the law, it was passed with the bipartisan support of a Democratic congressional majority and signed into law by a Democratic president.

In the 1980s, several cases involving the religious beliefs of American Indians were decided in which the Supreme Court ruled for the government. The Court held that Native Americans could not prevent a road from being cut through sacred lands (Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association) and that the use of peyote in religious worship could be prohibited under state law (Employment Division v. Smith). Public opinion was against the Court in these cases, which disregarded the Sherbert Test.

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. According to NPR, legal exemptions for religious believers go back to the founding era of the United States. One well known example involves deferments from military service for conscientious objectors.

In 1963, the Supreme Court clarified this right in Sherbert v. Verner. The Sherbert Test is used to determine whether a person’s right to the free exercise of religion has been violated. First, the court must determine whether the person has a sincere religious belief and whether the governmental action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief. If the plaintiff passes the first two tests, the court must then determine whether there is a “compelling state interest” and whether the governmental action is applied in the least burdensome manner to the religious beliefs.

The RFRA was enacted in the wake of the Native American religious cases to codify the traditional Sherbert Test. According to Govtrack, the bill was sponsored by Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 16, 1993. An identical Senate version of the bill was introduced by Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). The bill passed the House by a unanimous voice vote. Only three senators voted against the bill. They were Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Harlan Mathews (D-Tenn.), and Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).

The entire text of the RFRA can be read in a matter of minutes. The core of the law is Section 3 which stipulates that the “Government shall not burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the government demonstrates that the burden “furthers a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” In the Hobby Lobby case, it was the second test, that of being “least restrictive,” that the Obamacare mandate failed.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the RFRA was unconstitutional when applied to the states (City of Boerne v. Flores). As a result, some states have enacted their own religious freedom statutes into state law.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito notes that under the federal Dictionary Act, a corporation is treated as a person unless Congress specifies otherwise in a specific law. The RFRA contains no such exception. “The plain terms of RFRA,” he writes, “make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.”

Alito assumes but does not rule that the government has a compelling interest to provide “cost-free access” to contraceptives. It is not necessary to test whether the interest was compelling because the mandate failed the test of the being the “least restrictive” method. This is because the government had already implemented an alternative system for religious nonprofit groups. The mandate could not be the least restrictive method if a less restrictive, alternative method was already in existence.

In contrast to many claims from the left, the ruling does not allow bosses to control the bodies of female employees. Nor does it ban contraceptives or allow corporations to prohibit their employees from using them. It merely holds that the government must allow a religious accommodation for companies that are opposed to providing abortion-inducing drugs.

Alito also writes, “This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”

“We do not hold, as the principal dissent (Ginsburg’s opinion) alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can ‘opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,’” Alito continues. “Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose ‘disadvantages . . . on others’ or that require ‘the general public [to] pick up the tab.’”

Anticipating the objections from the left that the ruling will harm women, Alito points out that the effect of the legally required accommodation “on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing” just as women who currently work at religious nonprofits have cost-free access to abortion-inducing drugs and traditional contraceptives.

In the final analysis, the case was not about the availability of contraceptives, or even abortifacient, drugs. It was about who pays for them and the power of government to compel Americans to violate their religious beliefs.

 

Read the full article on National Elections Examiner

Contraception mandate may go to Supreme Court

The Obama Administration is headed back to court to defend another aspect of the Affordable Care Act. The Administration announced yesterday that it will appeal a June decision that issued an injunction against a government mandate that requires employers to provide coverage for abortion-inducing and contraceptive medications. The ruling came in a suit filed by the Hobby Lobby.

Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that employers must provide their employees with insurance that contains coverage for abortion-inducing and contraceptive drugs. Many employers, including the Catholic Church, contested the mandate on the grounds that it violated their religious beliefs.

Traditionally, religious exemptions were allowed for such controversial laws. Accommodations for religious believers are required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Obama Administration’s rule included a narrow exemption for churches, but not other religious organizations. Bishop David Zubik noted that the exemption could not even have been applied to Jesus and his disciples.

As dissent against the rule grew, President Obama announced a unilateral compromise in February 2012. As Examiner reported at the time, the compromise would still require religious groups to cover the abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance plans, but they would not be charged for them. Instead, the president would force insurance companies to provide the coverage at no cost to the religious groups. Presumably, the cost would be spread among other nonreligious insureds. There was no relief for private businesses who had moral objections to the mandate.

Several businesses filed suit against the mandate. In a June 2013 ruling, a judge issued a temporary injunction against government enforcement of the mandate for the Hobby Lobby, a company owned by evangelical Christians. According to Fox News, the company’s insurance provides 16 forms of birth control, but its owners oppose birth control methods that can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus, such as an intrauterine device or forms of emergency contraception, because they believe that life begins at conception.

The company had argued that the government’s action was a violation of the freedom of religion and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. According to the Wall St. Journal the act, passed in 1993 with only three nays and signed into law by President Clinton, requires that any “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion be “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and be the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest.

The injunction would apply until the 10^th circuit federal appeals court could rule on the merits of the case. It also gave the government until Oct. 1 to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. On Sept. 19, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Hobby Lobby decision according to Reuters.

In a separate case, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, also filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Sept. 19 in a similar case. Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Mennonite-owned business in Pennsylvania, had filed a suit similar to that of the Hobby Lobby. A three judge panel of the third circuit federal appeals court ruled against Conestoga in July and denied the company an appeal to the full court. The ruling subjects the company to fines of $3 million per month if they do not comply with the mandate to provide their employees with abortion pills and contraceptives.

Reuters notes that because federal appeals courts are split on the issue, the Supreme Court is likely to take up at least one of the cases. If the high court does hear a case on the issue, a ruling would be expected during the current term which starts in October and ends in June 2014. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. In upholding the law, the Court opened a host of other issues, including the question of religious freedom for employers. Fox News notes that there are 63 other cases challenging the mandate, 34 of which involve for-profit businesses.

Originally published on Elections Examiner

Why you should vote for Mitt Romney

Recently Examiner made the case against Barack Obama’s reelection. There are a multitude of reasons to vote against Obama, but that is only half of the equation. There are many reasons to make a positive choice to vote for Mitt Romney.

First, when it comes to the economy, Mitt Romney is the anti-Obama. Obama’s plan, only unveiled on October 23, is to raise taxes, increase regulation and spend even more. On the other hand, Mitt Romney wants to reform the tax system by lowering rates and eliminating loopholes that favor the wealthy. He wants to replace burdensome regulations like those in Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank finance law with rules that reflect market realities and common sense. Romney would immediately reduce spending to 2008 levels. Romney proposes to cut spending back to 20 percent of GDP (from its high last year of 24.3 percent) by the end of his first term. In spite of Obama’s claims in the debates and on the campaign trail, Romney does provide specifics. You can find the details of his plan on his website.

Romney’s economic plan is based on history. Tax rate cuts have led to economic growth at several points in U.S. history, most famously under John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Higher taxes and higher government spending has the opposite effect. These policies led to the Great Depression and the stagflation of the 1970s. The same is true in other countries as well. When Ireland cut its taxes and government, it went from one of the poorest nations in Europe to one of the most successful. When Japan tried to stimulate its way out of a recession it led to a “Lost Decade.”

Romney is also the anti-Obama on many social issues. Where President Obama negotiated a UN small arms treaty that threatens American Second Amendment rights, Mitt Romney promises to respect the rights of gun owners and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. Where Obama presided over the erosion of religious freedom, Romney has a long record of supporting religious liberty. Where President Obama is out of the closet as a supporter of same-sex marriage, Romney favors an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Noted evangelist Billy Graham told Mitt Romney, “I’ll do all I can to help you. And you can quote me on that” according to the Washington Post. Graham also took out several full page newspaper ads urging voters “to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the Biblical definition of marriage….”“

The second reason to vote for Mitt Romney is his choice of running mate. Paul Ryan is the most serious reformer in Congress. Ryan is the only person of either party to put forth a credible plan for saving Medicare and balancing the budget. Ryan’s plan, the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” preserves Medicare and Social Security in their current form for seniors while giving younger Americans more choice in their health care and retirement planning. Ryan’s plan also does not raise taxes. By choosing Paul Ryan to be his vice president, Mitt Romney showed that he is serious about reforming the federal government.

Third, a recent Pew poll profiled in the Los Angeles Times indicates that a majority of Americans feel that Iran is a major threat and want the United States to take a “firm stand.” President Obama and Vice President Biden don’t seem to take the threat seriously. In the vice presidential debate, Biden said that he wasn’t worried about an Iranian nuclear weapon because “they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point.” The Wall Street Journal points out that building a weapon is the easy part. Iran is currently working on the hard part: amassing enough enriched uranium to explode one or several nuclear bombs. The Obama Administration resisted sanctions and issued waivers to Iran’s largest trading partners including China. Under Obama’s watch, Iran’s rate of enrichment has tripled according to the Washington Post.

As he made clear in the foreign policy debate, Mitt Romney wants peace not war, but realizes the danger to the United States that a nuclear Iran poses. Romney would make the sanctions even tougher, although time for sanctions to work is rapidly slipping away. Romney also pledges to support the Iranian opposition, noting on his website that President Obama missed the opportunity to support Iran’s Green Revolution in 2009. Romney says on his website, “Only if Iran understands that the United States is utterly determined when we say that their nuclear weapons program is unacceptable is there a possibility that they will give up their nuclear aspirations peacefully.”

Fourth, voters should not be concerned about the fictitious war on women that the Democrats allege that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are engaged in. In reality, the president does not have the power to end abortion, no matter how much he opposes it. In reality, no one has proposed banning contraception. In reality, the Democratic position is that taxpayers and employers should be forced to pay for contraceptive and abortifacient drugs, regardless of whether they want them or not. The issue isn’t the freedom to use contraceptives; the issue is the freedom to not purchase them.

The fifth reason to vote for Mitt Romney is because he isn’t a wild eyed, out-of-touch radical as the Democrats have led voters to believe. As Americans saw in the three debates, he is an intelligent, personable man with a command of the facts and issues that confront the United States. He is generous, having donated nearly 30 percent of his income to charity in 2011 according to the Wall Street Journal. His record in business and as governor of Massachusetts is one of building teams and getting things done.

When Americans go the polls on Nov. 6, they have a real choice. The two candidates differ on almost every issue. Americans must choose between a return to the policies that made the United States an economic powerhouse and the envy of the world or a continuation of the Obama Administration policies of the past four years. Choosing President Obama might very well lead to an American Lost Decade and a loss of liberty as well.

See reasons to NOT vote for Barack Obama

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-you-should-vote-for-mitt-romney

More legal trouble for Obamacare

President Obama has suffered another setback in court. A federal judge in Colorado recently ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services mandate that all insurance policies cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs placed an illegal burden on freedom of religion.

Judge John Kane’s ruling was narrow, currently applying only to Hercules Industries according to Talking Points Memo. The company filed suit against the mandate claiming that it violated the Catholic beliefs of its owner. Judge Kane agreed and granted an injunction that prevented enforcement of the mandate against Hercules until courts could rule on the merits of the case. Judge Kane was an appointee of Democratic President Jimmy Carter.

There are also other lawsuits challenging the mandate that could benefit from the precedent set by Kane’s ruling. According to the Catholic News Agency, at least 43 Catholic groups have filed suit against the HHS mandate. Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory told the Georgia Bulletin that Georgia dioceses are not a part of the litigation, but are working to support it. He called on Catholics to “pray for its success and support the initiatives that are intended to protect our religious freedom.”

Judge Kane based his ruling on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This law requires that any “substantial burden” placed on religious beliefs having a “compelling government interest” and be the “least restrictive means” of advancing that interest. Judge Kane found that the HHS contraceptive mandate placed a “substantial burden” on Hercules’ First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

The Hercules case will not provide a silver bullet to slay Obamacare. A court may rule that the HHS mandate is illegal, but it is unlikely to throw out the entire law. A Supreme Court ruling in June established the constitutionality of the law by granting Congress an immense new taxing power.

Kane’s injunction does set the stage for a landmark ruling on freedom of religion, however. If a court subsequently rules in favor of Hercules it could strike down the mandate entirely. Either way, the ruling is likely to be appealed by the losing party and could eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.

In the end, the election may render the challenges against the mandate moot. If Mitt Romney becomes president, he has stated that his first act would be to issue an Executive Order that would stop the implementation of Obamacare. If Republicans win control of the senate, a repeal of Obamacare would be certain to pass both houses of congress.

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-contraception-mandate-faces-legal-setback

Nationwide Rally for religious freedom tomorrow

Atlantans will rally for religious freedom at the Georgia state capitol building tomorrow.  The rally is one of more than 140 events around the country to protest the Obama Administration’s mandate on religious organizations.  The mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services will force religious organizations to purchase contraceptive and abortifacient coverage regardless of their religious beliefs.  The mandate is widely believed to be a violation of the First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The rally is being coordinated by the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society according the national website, StandUpforReligiousFreedom.com.  The Atlanta rally is being promoted by the Georgia Catholic Conference.

The rallies are nonpartisan and ecumenical.  A flyer for the Atlanta rally notes that children are welcome and that the rally will be peaceful and instructs attendees not to engage counter-demonstrators either physically or “loud verbal argumentation, name-calling or derogatory remarks.”  Attendees are also instructed not to bring literature or signage for either political party or any candidate.

The Stand Up for Religious Freedom movement is reminiscent of the Tea Party movement, which began just over three years ago to protest federal bailouts and stimulus spending.  Denounced as “Astroturf,” racist and violent by Democrats, the Tea Party nevertheless spearheaded opposition to the Obama Administration that led to a Republican landslide in 2010.

The Atlanta Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally will be held outside the State Capitol building on Friday, March 23 from noon to 1:00 p.m.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Atlantans to rally for religious freedom on Friday - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/atlantans-to-rally-for-religious-freedom-on-friday-3#ixzz1ptRatVcN

The contraception mandate and freedom of choice

Contraception has been big news lately. The controversy between the Catholic Church and President Obama over whether the church’s charities should be required to provide employees with birth control and abortifacient drugs has become the front line in the war between religious and sexual freedoms. At its core however, the matter is really about the freedom of choice, but probably not the way you think.

These days, freedom of choice is usually a euphemism for abortion. The Orwellian doublespeak is used because fewer people would rally to support “a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby” than “a woman’s right to choose.” Almost always left unsaid is what it is a woman’s right to choose. Ostensibly, the choice is between abortion and giving birth, but in reality Democrats and liberals focus almost exclusively on the right to kill, opposing almost all restrictions on abortion including parental notification laws, waiting periods, mandatory counseling, and even a ban on gruesome partial birth abortions.

In reality, freedom of choice extends to many issues besides abortion. In the contraception debate, the Catholic Church is attempting to exercise its freedom of choice to not buy a product that they do not want. Historically, churches and religious organizations have often been given exemptions from laws that conflict with their religious beliefs. These exemptions have included tax exemptions, exemptions from vaccination laws, and exemptions from compulsory schooling and military service. In recent years, religious exemptions have been granted in several different areas including homosexual marriage laws and not requiring doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to participate in abortions. Essentially, religious groups and their adherents were given a freedom of choice to opt out of laws that violated their religious beliefs or conscience.

All that ended with Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act requires that all health insurance policies must include “preventive services” to insureds at no out-of-pocket cost according to the United States Justice Foundation. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule that included birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in these preventive services. The HHS rule exempted churches, but not other religious organizations. An article by Bishop David Zubik noted that the exemption was so narrowly written that it would not even fit Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

Democratic claims that the Republicans are trying to ban birth control are an obvious lie to anyone who looks closely at the ACA and the exemption requests of the Catholic Church. No one, not even Rick Santorum, has proposed a ban or limitation of birth control for people or groups who want it. Even Catholic employees can buy birth control if they want it, it just wouldn’t be covered under their health insurance and they would have the pay out-of-pocket. The cost would be about $15 per month according to Planned Parenthood.

In reality, the Republicans are acting to protect the freedom of religious groups to choose not to purchase birth control. President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius of the HHS originally planned to force religious groups to purchase the coverage whether they wanted it or not. Under the president’s compromise, the religious groups don’t have to pay for the coverage but they are still not given the freedom not to accept it all. The debate is whether the federal government has the right to force groups to purchase and accept coverage that they don’t want and believe to be immoral.

In one sense, the contraception debate is a microcosm of the debate over the ACA’s individual mandate. Nothing in the Constitution, including the commerce clause, gives the federal government the right to force Americans to engage in commerce. The Constitution explicitly lists the powers of the federal government and any power not delegated to the federal government by the states is reserved to the states, even if it is not specifically mentioned.

The religious nature of the contraception controversy also means that the mandate is in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Wall St. Journal notes that the act, passed in 1993 with only three nays and signed into law by President Clinton, requires that any “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion be “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and be the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest. The contraception mandate does not meet these tests.

The issue at hand is not whether a majority of Americans approve of birth control. The issue at hand is whether Americans will allow the federal government to force a religious group to violate its beliefs in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The issue is not whether birth control and abortion-inducing drugs will be banned, but who will pay for them. When Sandra Fluke testified before congress, it wasn’t because contraceptives were not available. She testified because she didn’t want to pay for contraceptives. Fluke wanted congress to force Georgetown University, a private Catholic college, to pay for her birth control even though the school finds it morally objectionable. This has been lost in the brouhaha over Rush Limbaugh’s ill-advised comment.

Increasingly, freedom to Democrats does not mean the right to do something; it means not having to pay for whatever you want to do. Unfortunately, since there are no free lunches, freedom from a financial burden for one means an increased financial burden and diminished freedom for someone else. Requiring someone to pay for someone else’s consumption of an item necessarily limits freedom because the government must dictate that the wealth transfer take place and compel or force the “donor” to part with their cash.

The Democrats would allow these moochers to dictate American economic policy and believe that recipients of entitlements have a right to those payments. In reality, no one has a right to the fruits of another’s labor. That is true regardless of whether the entitlement is laundered through a government bureaucracy or an employer. Today the entitlement mentality has expanded beyond basic needs like food and shelter to mobile phones, too-big-to-fail businesses, and health insurance and now to contraception and abortion.

In the case of President Obama’s contraception compromise, Catholic charities are being forced to accept contraceptive coverage that they don’t want, but they won’t have to pay for it. President Obama says that the insurance companies will bear the cost, but that isn’t true either. In the real world, the insurance companies will pass the cost along to their other policy holders. So health insurance premiums for everyone else because the president insisted on forcing religious groups to get a coverage that they never wanted in the first place.

Republicans are attempting to protect the right of the minority, the freedom to say no. On the other hand, the Democrats are trying to use government coercion expand an entitlement, the right to free stuff (that isn’t really free) whether the people want it or not.

Originally published on Examiner.com: