With Congressional approval at a rousing 10%, Speaker Boehner demands that the Health and Human Services ruling requiring abortions and other services be provided by Catholic institutions who provide health insurance, be rescinded or "all options are on the table whether it be stand alone legislation, amendments or limitation of funds provisions." Huh?
Is this not the most mealy mouthed, weak, and spineless response you have ever heard?
We are talking about a significant portion of our citizens effectively losing their freedom
to choose how they wish to live their lives. The government should not (and
Constitutionally cannot) tell us that we must do with the possible exception of paying our
taxes which IS mandated by the Constitution.
Once the government gets in the business of telling us what we must do every freedom we have is relegated to the dustbin. This attack on religion is just the first of many to come. If we let the Administration win, it will embolden them.
In fact, had ObamaCare not been passed (another posting later today will be on the Great Capitulator--Representative Bart Stupak--who effectively gave Obama the votes to pass this terrible bill) we would not be facing this issue. However, it is now law with the very real possibility that it will never be reversed. Once the bill was passed it gave the Administration the ability to create rules that "enable" the legislation. The first major one is the requirement that abortions, contraceptives and abortion pills must be provided by every organization providing health insurance. There is an exception for Churches and Synagogues, however, that does not apply to Catholic Hospitals (which care for a significant percentage of Americans) or Catholic Universities.
Should this rule not be changed, it will open the flood gates of other regulations. We might see mandatory exercise classes for persons who do not meet height and weight requirements, for example. OK, being overweight is a problem and it does cause other issues. But making it mandatory or you lose your coverage, is that the way it should be in the US?
Another potential would be fees/fines/penalties/loss of benefits on non-healthy food items. Pop (or for those easterners, soda), donuts, fried items like chicken, fast food, pizza (even though the government says it is a vegetable), meals in excess of "X" ounces, "Y" calories or "Z" ingredients or anything else the powers to be determine would not be healthy. We might even find that Mother's Milk might be unhealthy! These "bad" foods would be assessed a tax to help pay for the additional costs incurred by ObamaCare from those eating these items. Silly? Maybe. Possible, probably.
So if you don't eat rabbit food and don't get daily exercise you get the honor of paying more for your health insurance or you are not allowed to use it. Sounds like the America we want to live in!
The really sad thing is that anything dealing with life could be tied back to ObamaCare. Any activity that you participate in that could cost ObamaCare more, you would be charged extra premium. Not to pick on any one sport or activity specifically, however, when an injury would occur, it will cost you more to participate, even if you fall off your treadmill while doing your required daily exercise!
Life itself could limit your choices. The vast majority of health care dollars are spent on the last years of your life. Would it not make sense to limit the expenditures of people who had lived their lives? Why spent thousands on a 80 or 90 year old person? We would all agree with that, right? What about a 55 year old needing a heart transplant? Hasn't he also lived his life? Or how about a premature child born with health conditions that will require care for the balance of its life or for that part, the thousands spent on any child with health issues? Shouldn't government in its infinite wisdom say who will get coverage and who won't?
Any time humans try to make life and death decisions based on dollars, it turns tragic. The Nazi machine did not start killing healthy people, it started with those in mental institutions. In German logic, they were not contributing to the war effort and were a drag on society. They had to be eliminated. The initial plan was to use carbon monoxide. The people were loaded into the back of sealed trucks and driven around until they were dead. They found this process to be slow and not efficient. Their scientists found that Zyclon B, worked much better. We know the rest of the story.
So when we hear the Speaker's mealy mouth response to the the ObamaCare rules, we know that he is not going to stand up strongly and proudly. He is a weak Speaker who cannot command respect or demand action. The Republicans should oust him and put in his place someone who has the talent to make things happen and to call out those who are trying to do harm to this country.
If this does not happen, do not expect the Obama Administration to slow down on its attempts to remake America and the freedoms we used to have.
Boehner: Rescind Contraception Mandate Entirely So Catholic Individuals—as Well as Institutions—Are Not Forced to Act Against Faith
House Speaker John Boehner (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker John Boehner on Thursday told CNSNews.com through his spokesman that it is his position that the Obama administration’s regulation ordering that all health-care plans must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions, should be rescinded in its entirety so that neither Catholic individuals, nor Catholic business owners, nor Catholic insurers, nor Catholic institutions will be forced by the federal government to act against the teachings of the Catholic faith.
Boehner also specifically indicated he is leaving "on the table" the option of inserting language into future federal spending bills to prohibit the administration from using any money to implement the regulation.
Much of the press coverage on the controversy over the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate has erroneously presented it as a conflict between America’s Catholic bishops and the administration over the question of whether the administration will expand the “religious-employer” exemption in the current version of the regulation so that the exemption will apply to Catholic institutions such as hospitals, universities and charitable organizations.
For example, citing aides to President Barack Obama, a Wednesday New York Times article presented the issue this way.
“As the Republican presidential candidates and conservative leaders sought to frame the rule as showing President Obama's insensitivity to religious beliefs, Mr. Obama's aides promised to explore ways to make it more palatable to religious-affiliated institutions,” the Times reported.
''We certainly don't want to abridge anyone's religious freedoms, so we're going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,'' the Times quoted Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod as telling MSNBC.
But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and lay Catholic leaders have repeatedly made clear that the regulation violates the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion not only of Catholic institutions but also of individuals, employers and insurers--Catholic or otherwise--who have a religious objection to sterilization, contraception, or abortion.
“Finally, as applied to individuals and organizations with a religious objection to contraceptives, sterilization, and related counseling and education, the HHS mandate violates various protections under the Religion Clauses and Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told HHS in comments on the regulation submitted last August.
“The exemption provides no protection at all for individuals or insurers with a moral or religious objection to contraceptives or sterilization, who will experience burdens to conscience under this new mandate,” said the bishops. “Instead, it provides protection only to employers with similar objections, and even then to a very small subset of religious employers.”
“By failing to protect insurers, individuals, most employers, or any other stakeholders with a religious objection to such items and procedures, the HHS exemption, like the mandate itself, violates the First Amendment and the APA,” the bishops said.
“In sum, we urge HHS to rescind the mandate in its entirety,” they said. “Only rescission will eliminate all of the serious moral problems the mandate creates.”
On Wednesday, House Speaker Boehner gave a speech on the House floor saying that Congress “must” act to counter the administration’s regulation and that the matter was going to be taken up by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight over the Health and Human Services Department. In his speech, however, Boehner spoke of the regulation only insofar as it effects “faith-based employers.”
“This rule would require faith-based employers--including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals-- to provide services they believe are immoral,” Boehner said. “Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception.”
Following the speech, CNSNews.com sent Boehner Spokesman Michael Steel two questions to clarify whether the speaker’s position was that Congress should act to protect only faith-based employers from this regulation, or also individuals, private businessmen, and insurers. Also, CNSNews.com asked if the speaker believed that the House should put language in future spending bills prohibiting the administration from using federal money to implement the regulation.
Spokesman Steel said the answer to the first question was “yes.” To the second question, Steel said “all options are on the table.”
Specifically, CNSNews.com asked: “Is it your position, Mr. Speaker, that the House should pass legislation before Aug. 1 that in keeping with the position of the U.S. Catholic bishops entirely rescinds the HHS sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation so that not only Catholic institutions (such as hospitals, universities and charitable organizations) are protected from being forced by the government to act against the teachings of the Catholic faith, but that Catholic individuals, business owners and insurers are also protected from being forced by the government to act against the teachings of their faith?
Spokesman Steel responded: “Yes, it is the position of the speaker to act to rescind this rule that violates religious freedom before Aug 1.”
Then, CNSNews.com asked: “Is it your position, Mr. Speaker, that if the House Republicans fail to persuade the Senate and President Obama to enact legislation this year entirely rescinding the HHS sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation, that the House should put language in the appropriate fiscal 2013 funding bills prohibiting the administration from implementing this regulation?”
Steel responded: “All options are on the table whether it be stand alone legislation, amendments or limitation of funds provisions.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.