Trump's Ethanol Move Is The Opposite Of Swamp-Draining

One of the sacred cow subsidies of American politics is ethanol. The fuel additive is produced in by farmers in the political bellwether state of Iowa. That fact alone makes it difficult for politicians, even staunch free-market conservatives, to summon the intestinal fortitude to call for cuts to federal ethanol mandates.

In 2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) became one of the few politicians to stand in opposition to the Big Corn ethanol lobby. Cruz’s opposition almost certainly cost him support in the Iowa caucuses that year, but he still eked out a three-point victory over Donald Trump, who read the political winds and called for more ethanol in gasoline.

Make no mistake, political support for ethanol is an example of crony capitalism, the you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours way of doing business that free-market conservatives and Drain-the-Swampers are supposed to abhor. However, that doesn’t stop presidential candidates from singing the praises of the corn-based concoction as they swing through the Hawkeye State.

That was the case today when President Trump announced an initiative to allow the year-round sales of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol. The E15 blend is typically banned for use during summer because it produces more smog. Gasoline is typically sold with a blend of 10 percent ethanol.

Some may assume that removing federal restrictions on ethanol is a free market move, but, in reality, the ethanol market is largely a creation of federal mandates. The renewable fuel standard was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act. The federal goal was to reduce dependence on foreign oil as well as cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Today, thanks to the fracking boom, the US has almost broken its addiction to foreign oil, but states like Iowa are still dependent on income from ethanol.

As with federal intervention in the market, there are many competing interests. The most obvious is the farmers who grow and sell the corn that is used to make ethanol. These farmers are championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who was last seen presiding over the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. Grassley is a strong backer of the ethanol industry and was part of a group of senators that announced a tentative agreement with the Trump Administration last May to allow year-round sales of E15.

Gas stations also benefit from selling ethanol. Marketwatch notes that gasoline retailers earn credits called renewable identification numbers for selling ethanol-blended fuels. These credits can be traded or sold to gasoline refiners that manufacture fuels without enough ethanol to meet federal mandates. In other words, gas station owners make money on both the front end, selling gas to consumers, and the back end, selling credits to refiners.

Losers in the deal include oil refiners, who lose market share to companies that sell ethanol, and consumers, who are pushed by the government to buy an inferior product. Cars using ethanol-based fuels get lower gas mileage than those using unblended gasoline. Worse, engines in cars manufactured before 2001 may be damaged by ethanol-based fuels.   

The timing of Trump’s ethanol announcement is overtly political. Neither of Iowa’s senators is up for reelection this year, but three of its four congressmen are Republicans and they are all in tight races, as is the state’s Republican governor. Iowa’s first district, represented by represented by Republican Rod Blum looks likely to turn blue while David Young in the third district is in a tossup race. Rep. Steve King in the fourth district is holding onto a single-digit lead.

Some of the Republican difficulties can be blamed on President Trump’s trade war. Tariffs have hurt the state’s farmers to the tune of $2.2 billion. This summer, President Trump and the Republicans promised farmers a $550 million bailout to stem the losses. President Trump’s expansion of the ethanol market could be viewed as an additional aid package to farm voters.

Trump’s move could also disrupt farm markets by incentivizing farmers to drop other crops to grow corn. The Wall Street Journal reports that over a third of US corn is already being used for fuel rather than food. Increasing the ethanol market could cause food prices in other crops to rise as demand for corn increases and farmers shift production to take advantage of higher corn prices.

President Trump’s move to expand ethanol-based fuels is an example of the big government interfering in the marketplace. As is normally the case when the government meddles in the markets, the results benefit favored industries in exchange for higher prices for consumers. Rather than draining the swamp, that sounds like business as usual.

Originally published by 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

Millions of poorest Americans get no Obamacare subsidies

Lost among reports of the difficulties of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges is the news that President Obama’s health insurance reform law is actually making it harder for the very poor to get insurance coverage. The architecture of the law and the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision that struck down a portion of the Affordable Care Act have combined to create a gap for low income Americans that deprives them of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies as well as no-cost coverage under Medicaid.

Danielle Morgan, the 23-year-old married mother of four in North Carolina, is one of those affected. Danielle’s husband is a full-time Bible college student with no income. Danielle told Examiner that she works to support their family, but her employer does not offer health insurance. The family has not had health insurance in the past, but Danielle was hopeful that the new health insurance marketplaces would allow her to purchase an affordable policy for her family and avoid Obamacare’s fine.

Even though Danielle is employed, President Obama unilaterally delayed the portion of Obamacare that requires employers to provide their employees with health insurance. The employer mandate will only apply to companies with more than 50 employees when it goes into effect in 2015.

The problem of insuring low income workers is made worse because Obamacare bans the “mini-med” policies that cover an estimated 1.4 million Americans according to an estimate by Politico. These plans were used by many employers, such as McDonald’s, to provide low-cost health coverage for low-income workers who cannot afford to pay their share of a traditional health insurance plan. Because the plans have annual limits for payouts and do not provide the federal minimum essential coverage, they do not qualify as health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Many workers formerly insured by “mini-med” plans will likely become uninsured unless new “skinny” plans can be designed that meet the requirements of the law.

After several attempts at logging on the exchange, Danielle finally went to Kaiser’s online premium and subsidy calculator. What she found shocked and dismayed her. The premium for her family would be $5,711 per month for a Bronze plan. She also found out that her family would not qualify for a subsidy even though they are below the poverty line.

Danielle and her family fell into a gap created when the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare’s mandatory Medicaid expansion. In the 2012 ruling, the Court held that the federal government could not force the states to expand Medicaid to low income families. If states voluntarily expanded their Medicaid programs, the federal government promised to pay the full cost for three years and 90 percent thereafter. Twenty-five states, including North Carolina and Georgia, chose not to join the Medicare expansion. .

The Winston-Salem Journal estimated on Oct. 19 that as many as 300,000 North Carolinians under the poverty line may be affected by this Medicaid gap. Bloomberg, also on Oct. 19, noted that the number of Americans affected by the gap is estimated at 5.2 million nationwide.

According to the News Observer, North Carolina officials cited the cost of Medicare as well as systemic problems such as cost overruns and billing delays in rejecting the growth of the program. North Carolina’s Medicaid program cost $14 billion last year. The state’s portion was $3 billion, which represented about 15 percent of the state’s budget according to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. In Georgia, Medicaid spending also makes up 15 percent of the state budget according to Georgia Health News.

“So much of our state revenue has been eaten away by the Medicaid budget,” said Justin Burr, a Republican member of North Carolina’s House health care committee. “I certainly don’t think we need to expand an entitlement program.”

The ability of the federal government to honor its promise to pay its share of new Medicaid costs is also in question. The federal government has been operating at a budget deficit for years. As the federal debt mounted during Barack Obama’s administration, congressional battles over spending have become increasingly frequent and acrimonious. In the final analysis, increased spending for the Medicaid expansion may force tax increases at both the state and federal level.

Since the unveiling of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1, many Americans have experienced cases of sticker shock. Even many Americans who qualify for federal subsidies have found that premiums are much higher than expected. Both CNN and the Fiscal Times list high prices among the top complains about Obamacare. In many cases, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses are higher as well.

Danielle, who has a minor heart problem, says that she has not had health insurance in her adult life. She was worried about having to choose between paying the Obamacare fine and finding money for the health insurance premium for her family. There at least, there is some relief. Due to her family’s low income, she is exempt from the fine even though she will remain uninsured.

“It would be great to get coverage for just basic family doctor care at a reasonable price, Danielle said. “It just doesn’t make since to pay almost six grand for one or two visits a year with the cash price being a fraction of that.”

 

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Oklahoma lawsuit may deal Obamacare ‘fatal blow’

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012, but now another lawsuit is challenging the Affordable Care Act on different grounds. The new lawsuit, brought by the State of Oklahoma, has its roots in a legal paper by Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University, and Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. The paper, “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA,” argues that, according to the language in the law, Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies can only be applied to state exchanges, not exchanges set up by the federal government.

As Dick Morris explained in The Hill on Oct. 8, Section 1311 of the ACA establishes state health insurance exchanges. Section 1401 stipulates that refundable tax credits, the subsidies, are available only for health insurance purchased in Section 1311 exchanges, those set up by the states. Morris argues that the intent of Congress was to establish subsidies as an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges.

Only 16 states and the District of Columbia elected to form state health exchanges in spite of the promise of subsidies. One of these states, Oklahoma, filed suit in Pruitt v. Sebelius, challenging an IRS ruling that extended both the individual and employer mandates to all states according to lawyers.com. The suit claims that the employer mandate to provide health insurance to employees or pay a fine should not apply to states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges. It also challenges the subsidies.

Although filed in 2011, a stay was issued until the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The federal government moved to dismiss the lawsuit after the stay was lifted, but a federal judge let stand the complaints against the employer mandate and subsidy. The court also ruled that the State of Oklahoma has standing in the suit as a large employer. The case is currently pending before the Eastern District United States Court of Oklahoma.

If the court eventually sides with Oklahoma, John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis argues that it would be a “fatal blow” to Obamacare. “With so many states declining to set up exchanges,” he says, “Obamacare will be a disastrous failure if the courts agree with them.”

A victory for Oklahoma would also likely apply to other states, such as Georgia, that decided not to set up their own health exchange. As reported by Examiner, Governor Nathan Deal announced Georgia’s decision not to create an exchange in November 2012.

If the courts rule that the employer mandate and insurance subsidies do not apply in states with federal exchanges, it would destroy the delicate balance of the law in those states. Employers would not be fined if they declined to provide coverage for their employees. While the mandates for Obamacare’s “essential health benefits” would still apply in all states, subsidies would not be allowed in states with federal exchanges, making the cost of insurance prohibitively expensive.

While a court decision would not strike down the Affordable Care Act immediately, it would render the health law virtually nonexistent for employers in a majority of the country. While the individual mandate and fines would still apply, the lack of subsidies would mean that more people and companies would choose to opt out of purchasing insurance and the risk pool would shrink. Obamacare depends on young people buying expensive insurance to subsidize older and less healthy people.

If young, healthy people opt to pay the fine and employers choose not to provide health insurance, Obamacare will likely collapse under its own weight in short order. With Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, a new health care fix would require a bipartisan agreement, unlike when Obamacare was passed in 2010 with Democratic majorities in both houses and no Republican votes.

It seems as though Congress should have actually read the bill before they passed it.

Originally published on 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

The anti-choice Democrats

As Americans in Georgia and across the country begin to go to the polls (in Georgia early voting starts October 15) they should consider the freedom of choice and which party and candidate will really support their right to choose. Although the Democrats have traditionally assumed the mantle of “pro-choice” on the issue of abortion, there are many other issues on which the right of Americans to make choices for themselves is at stake.

One of the most obvious areas of concern this year is the right for Americans to make their own choices about health insurance. Even though President Obama has repeatedly (and as late as the first debate on October 3) said that Americans could keep their own health insurance if they liked their current plan, in reality Obamacare takes away the right to choose to self-insure or purchase a no-frills, high deductible policy. Under the president’s health care law, the federal government has the right to dictate the terms of health insurance policies that all Americans are now required to purchase. The law also provides a powerful incentive for companies to drop their group health plans and leave employees to purchase their own insurance on Obamacare’s exchanges.

Freedom of choice in Medicare is also at stake this November. President Obama and the Democrats oppose allowing seniors to choose private insurance policies subsidized by government price supports, which Obama derided in the debate as vouchers. Instead, the Democrats support the current system in which all seniors are forced into the government-run Medicare program in spite of the fact that fewer and fewer doctors accept the government insurance because its reimbursement rates are so far below the market prices for care. The problem will undoubtedly get worse as Obamacare forces an additional $700 billion in cuts on the Medicare program.

Yet another issue of health care choice is the Obama Administration’s mandate that all insurance policies cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs. Regardless of whether a person wants or needs such coverage, all insurance policies must now include these drugs at no out-of-pocket cost. The effect is that the cost of these services is now included in the policy premium, contributing to the rising cost of health insurance. The choice to opt out of these coverages for religious reasons or personal preference is forbidden.

The mandate also applies regardless of whether the policy holder or insurance company believes that abortion and contraception is moral. There was a narrow exemption for churches, but not other religious organizations or individual religious believers. President Obama offered a further compromise that religious organizations would have to accept the coverages, but at no cost. The cost would be passed along to other insureds, again causing policy premiums to rise.

The freedom to choose your child’s school is also at issue. Most Democrats do not support school vouchers or school choice, largely due to the fact that the party is beholden to teacher’s unions. The recent Chicago teacher strike was not only about money; it was also about keeping bad teachers from being held accountable. Under the status quo, children are assigned to schools based on their residence, regardless of whether that school is failing or meets their needs. In several cases, parents have been arrested for sending their children to better schools outside their district.

In areas where parent trigger laws allow parents to fire school administrators and turn failing schools into charter schools, Democrat-supported unions wage wars of harassment on parents rather than surrender control of schools, even though some Democratic politicians and a large majority of voters support the trigger laws. Harassment of parents and endless legal wrangling effectively negate parental choice.

An old issue of choice is the choice to own a gun. Even though the Supreme Court has upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms, with every high profile shooting or terrorist attack Democratic operatives reiterate calls for gun control. Democrats and gun opponents have called to eliminate the freedom of choice to purchase handguns, semi-automatic weapons, assault weapons, guns that look like military weapons, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and ammunition.

The Democratic anti-choice tendencies extend even to mundane household items. In 2007, the Democratic congress banned incandescent light bulbs. The infamous light bulb ban prompted the closure of several U.S. factories that produced incandescent bulbs and forced Americans to purchase expensive and potentially hazardous compact fluorescent bulbs.

The lists of products that liberal Democrats oppose or want to force Americans to buy are long. In either case, it conflicts with the basic freedom of choice. Liberals have opposed the freedom to buy gas guzzling SUVs, soft drinks, chocolate milk, and coal-based electricity among other things. Conversely, they have favored forcing people to purchase health insurance, ethanol-based fuels, trigger locks, hybrid cars and to ride trains instead of driving. They also support government monopolies on health care, Social Security, college loans, and who knows what else.

On social issues, the Democrats also oppose choice that conflicts with liberal orthodoxy. It is now taboo and bigoted to be a supporter of traditional marriage as Chick-fil-a CEO Dan Cathy discovered. Likewise, Democrats and liberals have little tolerance for those who revere life over abortion. Democrats even favor disclosure of the names of petition signers and donors to opposition groups so they can be singled out for partisan attacks and intimidation.

Perhaps the most telling difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats oppose giving Americans the choice of how to spend their own money. This is true on two levels. As given in the above examples, Democrats are more than happy to mandate that all Americans spend money on products that Democrats believe they should buy.

On another level, Democrats want to spend Americans’ money through higher taxes. After four years, President Obama’s only real plan to heal the economy and close the deficit is by raising taxes. If taxes go up it is axiomatic that there will be less money left in their paycheck to take home. The increased taxes will go directly to support federal spending at the cost of the spending power of individual Americans.

It isn’t even a question of whether President Obama will raise taxes on just the rich or the middle class as well. He already has raised taxes on the middle class numerous times. Obamacare is a bundle of tax increases masquerading as a health care law. Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of 21 new or higher taxes that President Obama has signed into law. Many of these taxes fall directly on the middle class. Many are part of Obamacare.

In the end, the anti-choice positions of liberals and Democrats underscore the fundamental difference between the parties. Conservative Republicans believe that people should be free to make their own decisions about what is best for their life as long as it does not hurt others. This position accepts that sometimes people will make mistakes and bad decisions. If people aren’t free to fail, then they aren’t really free.

To the contrary, leftists believe that, left to the own devices, people will not make the best decision. They believe that, because people cannot be trusted to do what is best for themselves, that government experts must tell them what to do and force them to do it. They also believe that, if necessary, people who do not comply should be punished… for their own good.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-anti-choice-democratic-party-1?cid=db_articles

Contraception compromise not likely to satisfy Catholics

The brouhaha over contraception for Catholic churches and charities began with a ruling issued by Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius a few weeks ago. The ruling, as part of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), would require that all companies provide their employees with health insurance that included contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization at no out-of-pocket cost.

As originally drafted, the rule exempted churches, but not religious charities, schools and nonprofit organizations. Since the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is wrong, the HHS rule put Catholic groups in the uncomfortable position of being forced to purchase a service they believed to be morally wrong, a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee against laws preventing the free exercise of religion. The controversy provides a stark example of the difference between freedom of religion and the “freedom of worship” that is often referenced by members of the Obama Administration.

The ruling also mandates that insurance policies cover abortion-inducing drugs, which many other religions besides the Catholics oppose. Ironically, the Affordable Care Act was passed because President Obama signed an executive order that convinced pro-life Democrats that federal funds would not be used for abortion. Now, under Sebelius’ ruling, federal funds are not being used, but the government is compelling religious groups to use their own money to pay for drugs that cause abortions.

The United States has a long history of including exemptions in legislation to respect the freedoms of religion and conscience. In particular, laws have been passed to protect doctors and pharmacists who believe that abortion is wrong and choose not to involve themselves in abortion procedures or fill prescriptions for abortion-inducing drugs.

Even though the Obama Administration gave the religious organizations an extra year to comply with the ruling, the result was a firestorm of opposition. Many Catholic bishops announced their intention to not comply with the HHS ruling. Religious leaders of other faiths joined them in protesting the president’s disregard for the freedom of conscience. Chuck Colson, a prominent evangelical leader, urged Christians to sign a petition asking President Obama to overturn the ruling and suggested that the time for civil disobedience may be near.

Georgia has several Catholic hospitals, including St. Joseph’s in Atlanta, which could be affected by the policy. In addition, the Catholic Church operates other charities in Georgia that include services from disaster relief to pregnancy counseling and adoptions. If the rule stands, these organizations could be forced to choose between abandoning their principles or using their money to pay hefty government fines instead of helping people.

As Democratic congressmen began to side with the religious groups against the rule, President Obama unveiled a compromise on Friday in a speech in which he equated pregnancy with an illness. In his speech, which is available on Youtube, the president proposed a compromise in which religious organizations with a conscientious objection would not have to pay for the undesired coverages. In those cases, “the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays, and without hassles.”

The compromise left several questions unanswered. Most obvious is the question of who pays. President Obama’s new ruling mandates that women not be charged for the contraceptive care, but nothing is free. If the insurance companies are forced to provide the coverage and are unable to pass the costs along to the religious groups for whom the women work, they will most likely raise the cost of insurance for nonreligious groups and companies. Essentially, insurance rates will be increased so that the government can force contraceptive and abortion coverage on groups that don’t want it.

Another question is how groups that self-insure would be treated under the new law. When a group self-insures, it uses its own money to pay medical claims without purchasing insurance. Therefore, there would be no insurance company to “reach out” and provide the contraceptive coverage. In a statement on its website, the Archdiocese of Atlanta pointed out that it, like many Catholic institutions, is self-insured.

Most importantly, religious groups are still being forced to accept insurance coverages that they find immoral, even though they are not be forced to pay for them directly. Likewise, nonreligious groups would still be required to pay for the coverages, even if they find them objectionable.

Consequently, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has said in a statement , “The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.” The statement continues, “We will therefore continue–with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency–our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government.” The bishops then call upon Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, which would allow health plans to decline coverage that is against religious beliefs.

At this point, it appears unlikely that President Obama’s proposed compromise will result in a solution to the crisis of conscience. Even though most Americans support the right to use birth control, they oppose government attempts to force it on religious organizations. With Americans split on abortion, there is likely to be even less support to force abortion-inducing drugs on religious groups. A further retreat by the Obama Administration is likely in the coming weeks in order to avoid alienating Catholic and independent voters.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/contraception-compromise-unlikely-to-satisfy-catholics

Meet the candidates: Mitt Romney

Romney (Jessica Rinaldi/Wikimedia Commons)

Voters who followed the 2008 presidential election will probably be familiar with Mitt Romney.  Romney is a conservative businessman who ran a three-way race with Mike Huckabee and John McCain for the Republican nomination before finally being defeated by John McCain.  Many voters probably remember Romney best for the controversy over his Mormon religion.

Willard Mitt Romney was born in Detroit on March 12, 1947.  His father was a CEO of American Motors and a three-term governor of Michigan.  His father ran unsuccessfully against Richard Nixon for the GOP nomination for president in 1968.  Mitt graduated from an elite private school and then attended Stanford University in the midst of the turbulent ‘60s.  At Stanford he was known as a clean cut student and at one point was part of a counter-protest to a sit-in against the draft.  After a year at Stanford, he became a Mormon missionary to France for two and a half years.

When Romney returned to the U.S., he enrolled in Brigham Young and married Anne Davis, who he had begun dating before he moved to France.  He graduated from Brigham Young with a B.A. in English in 1971.  He also earned a joint Juris Doctor/MBA from Harvard in 1975.  While in college and the mission field, Romney received deferments from the draft.  When he graduated, he was not drafted due to a high number.

Romney’s first job was with Boston Consulting Group as a management consultant.  He later became a highly successful management consultant for Bain and Company.  Romney became Bain’s vice president in 1978.  In 1983, Romney headed up Bain Capital, a new venture capital firm.  Bain Capital later focused on buyouts of other companies, which would then be rehabilitated using Bain’s management consulting methods.  Romney earned a reputation for being frugal, cautious and moral.  He once opted out of a deal involving a movie studio because they produced R-rated films.  In 1990, he returned to Bain and Company, the consulting firm, to save the company from bankruptcy.  He drew a salary of one dollar while restructuring the company over the next year. 

In 1994, Romney challenged the re-election of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy.  Romney won the Republican nomination in a landslide, but lost to Kennedy by 58-41 percent.  This was partly due to Kennedy’s ads that questioned Romney’s flip-flops on issues and treatment of workers at companies that Bain owned. 

Romney is well known for managing the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.  When he took the helm of the organizing committee, there was a $379 million deficit.  Under Romney, the games turned a profit and were widely considered to be one of the most successful Olympics in U.S. history.

In 2002, Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts.  Romney cut spending, closed tax loopholes and increased fees to turn a billion dollar deficit into surplus.  He is most remembered, however, for presiding over the enactment of Massachusetts’ universal health care law, known informally as “Romneycare.”  The law is very similar to the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” and contains an individual mandate to buy health insurance and fines for those who do not. 

In 2008, Romney competed in the Republican presidential primaries.  After he failed to win the nomination, he endorsed fellow Republican John McCain and vigorously campaigned for him.  In Georgia, Romney finished third with six percent of the vote.  Mike Huckabee finished first with 34 percent followed by John McCain with 32 percent.  After the election, he founded the Free and Strong America PAC to raise money for Republican candidates.  Romney has also written two books.

One of the largest drawbacks for Romney in the 2012 campaign will undoubtedly be his connection with an Obama-like health care reform law.  The Wall St. Journal reports that already Massachusetts is increasing fines and taxes in a desperate attempt to keep the program solvent as its costs skyrocket.  According to the article, current governor Deval Patrick is considering spending caps as well as excluding coverage for certain services. NPR notes that the large increase in people with health insurance in Massachusetts has led to a doctor shortage where many doctors are not accepting new patients.  Five years after the reform law passed, Massachusetts is still the second most expensive state for health care (just behind Maine) according to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.  An April 2011 poll shows that 49 percent of respondents don’t believe that Romney’s reform is working.

Romney recently attempted to defend his Massachusetts law in a major speech and an op-ed letter to the Wall St. Journal while at the same time attacking President Obama’s version.  An important distinction is that the individual mandate is widely believed to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.  Many state constitutions may permit such a mandate.  Voters, however, may not like such an expansion of government power even if it is legal.  The bottom line is that the reform is not working. His record on health care reform is the biggest problem for Romney to overcome. 

Many voters might also be leery of Romney’s record of flip-flops.  In particular, Romney is known for having reversed his position on abortion.  As a candidate for governor in 2002, Romney said in a televised debate that he would “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose [abortion].”  By 2007, prior to his presidential campaign, Romney claimed that he had come to see abortion as immoral.  A sister of Romney’s brother-in-law died in an illegal abortion in the 1960s.  Charges of past flip-flops make it difficult for Romney to distance himself from his health care reform record without looking uncertain of himself.

Another Romney scandal is his involvement with Damon Corp., a company that plead guilty to defrauding the government.  Romney sat on the board of directors while the fraud was taking place, but none of the directors have ever been implicated.  Romney claimed to have asked Bain’s lawyers to investigate the illegal activity and helped to correct it, but court records indicate that the fraud continued until after Bain sold Damon according to Deseret News.

More recently, in February 2010, Romney was involved in an air-rage incident with Sky Blu, a rapper with LMFAO.  The two were on a flight from Vancouver to Los Angeles when Romney asked Sky Blu to raise his seat back and a fight resulted.  Sky Blu claimed in a video that Romney grabbed his shoulder and he then tried to punch Romney in self-defense.  The plane returned to Vancouver where Sky Blu was arrested and removed.     

Mitt Romney is currently the frontrunner among the GOP candidates.  A recent Gallup poll (after the departures of Huckabee and Trump) puts him at seventeen percent, two points ahead of Sarah Palin.  If Palin does not run, Romney would move up to nineteen percent.  This would give him a comfortable seven point lead over Newt Gingrich, his nearest rival.  Of course, Romney has been disappointed before.  He was widely considered to be the likely GOP candidate in 2008, only to be confounded by McCain and Huckabee.  

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-mitt-romney">