VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — President Obama’s mandate and so-called compromise violate religious liberty and the conscience rights of millions of Americans.
First, the Department of Health and Human Services issued its mandate requiring religious institutions, such as religious schools and hospitals, to include abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception in their insurance policies for employees. That is a mandate that violates the deeply held religious beliefs of many.
Rightly so, an uproar of massive, well-deserved criticism ensued. The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the mandate “egregiously unfair” and “un-American.” The head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission described the mandate as “bad news” for freedom of conscience and religion.
The criticism deepened and Mr. Obama sought to right a sinking ship by issuing what he called an “accommodation.”
This deceptive compromise requires insurance companies to provide employees of the religious organizations that object with contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs free of charge. That’s nothing more than a ruse, a shell game, an accounting trick.
To cover costs, insurance companies would boost premiums, forcing religious groups — and the religious employees — to pay more for services that they find morally offensive. The compromise changes nothing — it still places the federal government at the helm of the religious views of faith-based institutions.
Most who opposed the mandate have rejected this “accommodation” — including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which labeled the offer “unacceptable.” We heard from nearly 70,000 Americans in just a few days urging reversal of this troubling measure.
The fact is the mandate and the “compromise” are not about health care. They represent a dangerous and unconstitutional power play by the federal government. It’s the ultimate in government intrusion, representing a significant threat to religious organizations.
We’ve been advocating against this government interference since last summer when we warned the HHS that the mandate would threaten the very existence of religious organizations, like the Dominican Sisters of the Congregation of St. Cecilia in Nashville, which has been educating young people and caring for the infirmed since its founding in 1860.
In our letter to the HHS, we warned: “In their 151-year history, the Nashville Dominicans have, with the help of God, survived a Civil War on their doorstep, deadly epidemics, devastating floods, economic depression and tumultuous social upheaval. Today, however, they face a new, more insidious threat — their own government. ... What war and disease could not do to the Congregation, the government of the United States will do. It will shut them down.”
The federal government is truly overstepping its constitutional authority. It has no business getting involved in this matter.
The Obama administration is ignoring the fundamental principles on which this nation was built. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprise of civil authority.” James Madison held that conscience is “the most sacred of all property.”
In remarks before the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month, the president preached about the importance of religious faith. “We can’t leave our values at the door,” he said. “If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries ...”
The problem is that Obama’s mandate and subsequent compromise do just that — demand that millions of Americans leave their values at the door.
Americans expect and deserve to enjoy the protections afforded to them under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That is exactly why millions of Americans will reject this compromise. There can be no compromise with one of our most cherished freedoms — the free exercise of religion.
• Sekulow is chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice.
Comments (88)
Add commentNot obsessed lat. Just want
Not obsessed lat. Just want everyone to have their heads above ground level on this one.
I'm not sure you are correct that more people will receive healthcare since I don't know of anyone who can't get it now. It would be true to say that more people will be covered by a health insurance plan. It would also be true to say that more people will receive crappier health care under Obamacare. Obamacare is single-payer in the end game and can only reduce overall cost by not providing service to some. Those "some" will be determined by a panel of bureaucrats who don't work for you and you don't get to pick a different bureaucrat to make decisions about your lifespan.
Healthcare is expensive because many of its practitioners are incredibly good at their jobs and medical research has come up with equally incredible technologies that allow us to live much longer than we previously could. I disagree in general that doctors are overpaid but in the absence of a free market that would otherwise set compensation properly you could be correct.
I couldn't care less about the deficit. We can print our own money and right now anyone who wants to buy oil has to buy it in dollars so we can party down with our freshly printed benjamins until the rest of the world figures out how to keep the US from kicking their asses back to the petrodollar.......
I guess the point of my engagement today was to have someone say what you did in the last two lines of your 11:52pm post:
"Let people go when it's their time. If it takes a death panel to determine that, so be it."
That is Obamacare...........quod erat demonstradum.....cheers.....
anywho....
I think that we should get back to the point of this article, as few in this comment section have done. tatem has probably put forward the only relevant argument around.
The issue around this legislation is this, under this legislation Catholic employers would be REQUIRED to provide all of their employees with a health care plan that provides coverage for contraceptive and abortion related services, something that the employer obviously is morally and religiously opposed to. Employers would provide health care plans by paying for a percentage of their employees' plans. If the employer refused to provide the health care package that they were morally and religiously opposed to then they would be slapped with fines and fees.
In other words the employer who is opposed to the mandatory health care plan both morally and religiously either has to pay for the plan anyway or pay government mandated fees in order to practice their religious beliefs with a clean conscience.
Seems pretty simple to me. No one should be forced to have to pay the government money to practice their beliefs. Catholic or not the issue is freedom of religion, and this law would violate it.
anywho....
I think that we should get back to the point of this article, as few in this comment section have done. tatem has probably put forward the only relevant argument around.
The issue around this legislation is this, under this legislation Catholic employers would be REQUIRED to provide all of their employees with a health care plan that provides coverage for contraceptive and abortion related services, something that the employer obviously is morally and religiously opposed to. Employers would provide health care plans by paying for a percentage of their employees' plans. If the employer refused to provide the health care package that they were morally and religiously opposed to then they would be slapped with fines and fees.
In other words the employer who is opposed to the mandatory health care plan both morally and religiously either has to pay for the plan anyway or pay government mandated fees in order to practice their religious beliefs with a clean conscience.
Seems pretty simple to me. No one should be forced to have to pay the government money to practice their beliefs. Catholic or not the issue is freedom of religion, and this law would violate it.
anywho....
I think that we should get back to the point of this article, as few in this comment section have done. tatem has probably put forward the only relevant argument around.
The issue around this legislation is this, under this legislation Catholic employers would be REQUIRED to provide all of their employees with a health care plan that provides coverage for contraceptive and abortion related services, something that the employer obviously is morally and religiously opposed to. Employers would provide health care plans by paying for a percentage of their employees' plans. If the employer refused to provide the health care package that they were morally and religiously opposed to then they would be slapped with fines and fees.
In other words the employer who is opposed to the mandatory health care plan both morally and religiously either has to pay for the plan anyway or pay government mandated fees in order to practice their religious beliefs with a clean conscience.
Seems pretty simple to me. No one should be forced to have to pay the government money to practice their beliefs. Catholic or not the issue is freedom of religion, and this law would violate it.
oops
sorry I got a little trigger happy on my mouse there...
OK SEAK
Right back to the original critique.
You're a private employer who has a belief (moral, principle, religion, whatever...) that blood transfusions, X-rays, vaccines or what have you violate their personal beliefs. By your position spelled out above, that employer should not be required to provide insurance that covers those services.
Just to be clear, that's what you're saying, right?
mmhmm
That about sums it up. Although I mainly meant religious opposition as religious morality is usually more clearly defined and defendable in court. But yes, no one should be forced, legally or otherwise, to provide others with services they themselves religiously oppose.
I don't know if it is just the word Catholic that turns this into a huge deal or what but to me this law is an obvious encroachment on a religious belief. And don't think Catholics are just throwing a fuss because they're on the right and against universal health care as a whole. The Pope himself stood behind the Occupy movement and is about as left as it gets on most social issues minus abortion, contraceptives, and same sex marriage.
Got it
I'm sure you can see the obvious potential for abuse in that interpretation. Any employer wanting to evade providing insurance to employees just whips out the religion/morality card.
I think some here like blackdog are just using this as a political weapon to bludgeon Obama. Belief and morality have nothing to do with their opposition.
I also assume that the Pope supports general healthcare for the population.
So the solution seems obvious. Single payer healthcare provided by the government. And since churches are tax exempt, so they wouldn't be funding objectionable procedures. Individual taxpayers could object, but we all end up supporting something the government does that we oppose, like overseas wars.
If the bishops came out strongly for single payer healthcare as a compromise, I might respect their position a little more.
Of course contraception
Of course contraception should be covered by insurance!
To single-out "contraception" coverage is discriminatory. My insurance provider covers things for other people that I do not agree with but do I make a stink over it?
Of course not.
And look at all the problems are country is having and this is what the Republicans are talking about.
Why? Its because they have no solutions for our countries problems and they are trying to rally conservatives to the polls.
blackdog and gelbert (or whatever)
Latitude and SEAKanddestroy's discussion above was my point that you missed previously.
I may be more emotional about this issue because I am a woman, and I honestly don't think men can understand what the ability to control my own body and reproduction means, so for that I apologize.
I actually have no problem with religion, and believe very strongly in Freedom of Religion, which is why this issue makes me so frustrated. Freedom of Religion to me means freedom of ALL religions, equally. Unfortunately, as you have illustrated with your comments on a Muslim affiliated business - the Catholic bishops are not thinking about this issue in terms of freedom of religion for ALL, including the non-religious, they are only thinking of it in terms of the Catholic religion, and institutionalizing tenants of the Catholic/christian religion into law for ALL citizens of the US, be they Buddhist, Muslim, or Athiest.
The practical matter is, as pointed out above, that if this kind of thing is allowed for Catholics and contraception, then where does it end? There may not be many Muslim hospitals now, or Buddhist Universities, but there is NO reason there wouldn't be in the future - Buddhists are pacifists - so should all Buddhist businesses be allowed to not pay taxes because we use some of them for weapons and warfare? It's just never-ending, which is why we have PERSONAL responsibility in this country - just because something is available is NOT the same thing as being FORCED to accept it - but narrowing what is available to ALL because a few people find it unacceptable eventually leaves you with nothing.
I know I've said this before, but it's exactly like saying if you allow free speech you are forced to condone the message of the KKK or Black Panthers or whomever. Of course not - but the Freedom for those groups, however distasteful, MUST be allowed so that ALL of us have the same access to freedom of speech when WE need to use it.
I'm still a bit lost...
...after everything that has been written, and given that the original text of the bill is available, and given that the same text to which Palin (koff) originally objected was removed...um...how is it that Blackdog is still insisting that "Death Panels" exist?
Maybe a good beginning would be for you to define your terms - what do you mean by "Death Panel"?
Hopefully, it will not include whatever was meant by the term when it was named "Lie of the Year" for 2009.
Well said, Swimmer
As usual. :-)
Sorry - Grendel
.....forgot your handle.
It's pretty simple logic, to follow the argument to it's conclusion. I don't believe that neither of you get it.
If you don't have any other reason that "I don't like it, and want everyone to follow my beliefs whether they are religious or not" - then just say so.
fromdust - thx but
I feel like it's really personal now, you know? I simply have a hard time believing that all the posters here, and all the people pushing this kind of legislation in the nation, could or would go home to their wives and girlfriends and say, "I don't think you should take the pill, so I won't allow it, and I'm not wearing a condom, so tough..." - - it simply boggles my mind, you know?
I'm guessing if that were reality, there would be a whoooole lot more men sleeping on the couch. I know I could never be with someone who felt my health, needs and opinion were inferior to his.
@swimmer You make some valid
@swimmer
You make some valid points, although I strongly disagree with the reasoning that because you are a woman, you should have the last word on the subject. Yes, as a woman if you have unprotected sex you can get pregnant. But as a rational being, you should realize that is the result of sex. To end the life of someone is immoral. It is my belief that almost all women who have abortions are doing it for selfish, irresponsible reasons. This should be something to think about before having sex. If you do not feel like you could carry a baby to term, don't have sex. To act otherwise could lead to the purposeful ending of a human life, and that is horribly wrong. I'll say it again, it is my opinion that women continue to have abortions because they are irresponsible, extremely selfish, or just ignorant. That was my opinion an agnostic woman, and it's my opinion now as a Catholic woman. I do not consider this a 'woman's health issue'. It is ignorant to compare abortion to a blood transfusion, surgery, or most other medical procedures that insurance might cover. No Bishop is demanding the end to ANY real medical expense. This is a violation of morality. To you this may be a convenient solution to a 'woman's health issue', but to me it is a truly grievous act. If women's health is really the issue at heart, let's rally against ovarian cancer. Let's put our efforts into finding a cure for endometriosis and heart disease. I'm sure you'll find no one will oppose insurance coverage for the healing of a woman's life, instead of taking one from her.
@Swimmer
I think your statement that "the Catholic bishops are not thinking about this issue in terms of freedom of religion for ALL" is not true. Sure they are acting on their own interests because this law would force members of their congregation to partake in something they find inherently immoral but if this law were to be passed and then overturned in the supreme court then it would be the deciding basis case on how ANY religion could over turn a law that they feel violated their first amendment rights. Thus any step that they make towards stopping this legislation would be a step for freedom of religion for ALL.
You also say:
"just because something is available is NOT the same thing as being FORCED to accept it"
While you are 100% correct in that statement the fact is this legislation would indeed FORCE Catholics to comply or be subject to the fees of declining the health plan.
Also just because the Catholic Bishops happen to be male DOES NOT mean that this is a case of men telling women what to do. They represent the Church which is composed of approximately 78 million US citizens. (from wikipedia so theres some wiggle room there) Divide that in two and you get around 39 million women. Conservatively divide by two again to get at least 20+ MILLION US CATHOLIC WOMEN who fully stand behind the Bishops. And that is Catholics alone, not including the various other religions who agree with the Catholic Bishops view.
This law isn't about trying to stop contraceptives or abortion being covered in health plans it is about trying to stop those plans from being FORCED upon those who find a religious conflict with them.
Tatem and SEAK -
Tatem - I agree with you that as a rational being I recognize that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy - which is why I believe it is my personal right to have access to birth control covered by my insurance, no matter where I work. Your argument leaves out one thing. I am not religious. I fully support your choice to not have sex until you are married if that is what your religion tells you is the moral choice. But I do not follow that belief. Are you telling me that because you find premarital sex immoral that you believe it is ok to impose that standard on me, a non-believer? That is definitely NOT in the spirit of Freedom of Religion.
Aside from the fact that the idea that suddenly contraception is being forced on catholic-affiliated businesses is hogwash (many, many catholic affiliated businesses, including hospitals and law schools - have been providing contraception for years without a peep) - - are you really thinking about the logical extension of the argument that no religious business owner should be 'forced' to pay for anything they find 'immoral'? Why would you expect that to stop at health care? Think for just a moment about how far that could go.
Look, I get it. We all have different degrees of 'morality'. Many of us in the U.S. have different religions. Some have no religion. But the reason it works here is because as long as you are not hurting anyone else, personal freedom is paramount here. Which is exactly why we don't have the oppression you see in a Myanmar, or Syria. Everyone is ALLOWED to do things that other people might find offensive - as long as their actions don't harm anyone else. There are thousands of examples of this - for a short list - maybe I find KKK rallies, war, viagra, and tax breaks for churches offensive and 'immoral'. But it does not mean I don't recognize that in a free society such as ours - I do not have the right because I disagree, to keep those people from doing what they do, even though my insurance and/or tax dollars (or lack therof) pay to support all of those things. Individual freedom. think about it.
seak - I'm sorry....
I just don't get it. You and I both, right now, pay for things through our health care and taxes that we would both find immoral or distasteful every single day. Unfortunately, that's how the system works. And if every religion and every group (and possibly individuals - which is where this is going in the news now) is allowed to 'ala carte' any law they have a "moral" or "religious" objection to, in spite of the greater good?
You won't have much left. Discriminate against the blind, or the handicapped? Fine. Pacifist? Stop paying taxes that could go towards weapons or soldier's health care. Anarchist? Stop paying taxes or obeying laws all together - what the heck. You don't like it, so everyone else should live by what your 'morality' is - to heck with what they might believe, you are certainly more important than the whole.
Swimmer~
I completely and utterly agree that it is extremely personal, and I imagine it might feel, from a woman's perspective, akin to being relegated (again) to second-class citizenry. I would assume, to follow Tatem's reasoning above, that every act of intercourse is designed only to allow for reproduction, and therefore all the Viagra being sold (and covered under insurance plans) is somehow categorically different than placing men's sexual activities as more important than women's right to reproductive health care.
another way...
Let me try another way. Freedom of religion means, that I should not have to live by or be affected by your religious belief, in a public place where I would not otherwise expect to. A private church, of course would be, and is, excluded. But a hospital? A university? Places that do not require a religious affiliation to join or receive services or be employed? Places that receive public (my) funds? Somewhere I might be taken in an ambulance in an emergency? As a non-religious person, should I check my right to freedom of religion at the door? Is it somehow less meaningful than a Catholic person's right to practice their religion?
fromdust
the sheer hypocricy of it simply takes my breath away.
individual freedom
You nailed it. Individual freedom. That's my point. An employer should be allowed the INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM to provide a health care plan that does not conflict with their religious beliefs. You as an employee should be aware of your employer's policy and it would be your INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM to either accept the employers policy or find another place of work that has a health care plan that provides the services that you desire.
Again you aren't seeing that my argument isn't that contraceptives and abortion are immoral. My argument is that it is a violation of INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to require that someone pay for services that they religiously cannot comply with.
And I know my taxes pay for things currently that I am opposed to but on principle I believe that it is fundamentally different then specifically writing a check to cover something I know I disagree with. Personally I disagree with the whole system right now. We should have much more individual freedom as long as those freedoms don't harm those around us. And a private employer choosing not to provide employees with contraceptives or abortion services is not harmful to others. They were willing to give you a job and coverage for a vast majority of medical treatments so how much work is it to buy some condoms or the pill if your employer chooses not to cover it. Having a standard for health insurance would be great, but private employers should not have to provide coverage for things they don't wish to.
How about this one?
A Jewish hospital that requires all males being treated there be circumcised prior to services. Ooooh, don't mess with the all-sacred male organ!
I would think, seeing as how so many Catholic institutions ALREADY provide for contraception in their health care plans, that this would be a non-issue. But if it is, why not take the higher road, offer such services in pity for those lost from The Way, and provide such a remarkable example of holiness and divine providence that unbelievers are converted by your example, not your laws?
Tomato - tomahto
Blackdog, what you call a death panel, my family and I called a "life panel". You see, my mother was in a hospital for over a year. Slowly dying. She didn't want to die. She asked me to do everything possible to keep her alive. I participated in her life panels every month - flying from Juneau to Seattle to do so. Her doctors and nurses were wonderful, caring individuals who took the time to explain her condition, what options she had and what the chances of success were each time something was done, from the amputation, one toe at a time, of her left foot on up to just below her knee, to her kidney failure and heart attacks/strokes. They thought several times that she wasn't going to make it. But they never stopped trying or encouraged me to just let her die. When she did finally pass away in late 2010, I knew 100 percent that they, and I, had done everything humanly possible to help her. In the end, her body just gave out.
Did you have a bad personal experience, or are you just blindly forming an opinion? Based on my own personal experience, I think I am qualified to say that you are wrong.
fromdust -
I had that same thought!
:)
fromdust - a couple more examples...
from the flip side.
If the Catholic church is so "outraged" by the "sudden" notion that they provide full health care coverage to their non-catholic employees, against their "morals" - - there are probably a few other things they should stop paying for as well:
Taxes that go to pay city clerks - who process Divorce papers.
Any funding or programs that are linked to those who take drugs - including jail.
Any funding that goes to help any and all kids who are born out of wedlock, since that is clearly immoral - including public education for those children.
Any and all funding that goes to anyone who works on Sunday.
I'm sure there are many more - I don't keep track of all the things the Catholics find "immoral". Gee, sounds like Catholics won't be paying for anything pretty soon.....
swimmer, those examples, while great, miss a point
Male celibates discriminating against women's reproduction is the sausage fest they relish.
Mike