Obama’s contraceptive mandate sparks nationwide demonstrations
On March 23 at high noon thousands of Americans will gather in over 60 cities with one simple message for President Obama: Back away from the First Amendment.
On that day pro-life and religious groups will gather at federal buildings in Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and more to demonstrate in defense of religious liberty.
Occupy Contraceptive Mandate? No, our side isn’t into violence, rape, drug use, filth, destruction, and incoherence.
No, on March 23 citizens who love America and the freedom upon which our country was founded will gather with one rallying cry: “Stand Up for Religious Freedom – Stop the HHS Mandate!”
The demonstrations, organized by Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and the Pro-Life Action League, will oppose the new mandate handed down by theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services that requires all employers to provide free contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization through their health plans. Religious leaders and other public figures will speak out against the HHS mandate.
The HHS provided a “religious exemption” so narrow it would exclude religious hospitals, universities, and charities, forcing these institutions to violate their teachings through the health care plans they provide. In short, the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
CPS and PLAL have formed the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Coalition, comprised of dozens of local and national pro-life and pro-family organizations, to fight the HHS Mandate through direct action. Go to the webpage to find more information for the nearest rally to you.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’ll be at the Philadelphia one, with bells and whistles on!! I’m not against you using contraception, but I am against you making others pay for an elective-use drug or procedure. I’m especially against you making the clergy who consider it sinful pay for it!
Checking my calendar to see if i can attend.
Myself I see this whole thing as a seperation between church and state, in which again our failed president feels he can dictate what ever he pleases. It amazes me, that as long as something is “free” everyone is for it, not only that, they feel they are entitled to it. I saw this one site that is so supportive of abortion , planned parenthood, and so pro obama and “free stuff” that it’s sickening. http://www.care2.com/causes/obama-birth-control-position-good-policy-politics.html . It’s all about the “free” stuff, people feel so entitled, they can’t see any self responsiblity at all, it’s to much to ask them to buy a box of condoms at 36 for $19.79 (55 cents per use). Meanwhile we have a president that shreads our constitution and our bill of rights all for the cost of “free birth control”.
If they think it’s an affront to the First Amendment to require putatively religious employers to abide by neutral laws of general applicability, then they should be protesting the Supreme Court decision Employment Division v. Smith instead.
Joan, there’s a fundamental difference between outlawing the use of a drug across the board and mandating that someone BUY something morally reprehensible. To Catholics and other religious groups, this bill is the equivalent of forcing them to BUY peyote (the drug at issue in Smith), not prohibiting its use. Many people would equally find that forcing religious groups to buy elective-use drugs (like peyote and birth control) that they find morally reprehensible to be easily distinguishable from the Smith case. Smith prohibited a behavior, while the contraceptive mandate is not only forcing a behavior, it’s forcing religious groups to subsidize what they view to be sin. Try again.
All week I’ve witnessed elected public officials lying, bold-faced, to the media and the Amercian people. (99% of no population of women anywhere are using birth control; 99% of any female population isn’t even fertile!!!!!!!!!!) Not only that, but Obama has launched a clear and obvious assault on the religious freedom of ALL Americans. Today, many duped folks think this is a good thing, because gee, don’t we all love something free even though we’re going to pretend that we won’t pay for it through our taxes and having our paychecks cut by our employer to cover costs.
Soon, we’ll have to pay for sex changes, breast implants, nose jobs, and tummy tucks. But you diabetics and you folks with high blood pressure, sorry! We won’t have any money left to cover you because your pancreas just ain’t popular enough.
“Joan, there’s a fundamental difference between outlawing the use of a drug across the board and mandating that someone BUY something morally reprehensible.”
Right. Tell that to someone who has a religious obligation to use the drug in question and would find it “morally reprehensible” to not be allowed to do so. But I digress. You’re drawing a meaningless distinction between the (irrelevant) specifics of Smith and the current matter. The holding of Smith affirms exactly what I described in my last post: the government is not obliged by the Free Exercise clause to exclude religious persons or organizations from neutral laws of general applicability. If and when this goes to court, that will almost certainly be the finding.
Obama, not content to merely make war on babies and America, also makes war on the 2000 year old Catholic Church. No wonder he won a Nobel Peace Prize. Is there anyone who could possibly be a worse president than this guy? Aside from a violent dictator. I’m convinced that “leaders” like Obama are how brutal tyrants get into power. The people choose them thinking that nobody could be worse than what they have now.
Joan, this is not a ‘neutral laws of general applicablility’ if it was ‘neutral’ there wouldn’t, by definition, be an objection to it. Even if you aren’t against hormonal contraceptives/contraceptives/abortion causing agents/sterilization on moral grounds, one can still be ethically against the forcing of everyone to pay for it. These are 100% elective procedures/medications. There isn’t a single other thing people/companies/insurances is being forced to cover that is elective. In all other instances ‘neutral laws of general applicability’ are used towards things that are mandatory or required for life (not life style). Furthermore, not only is this elective medicine used to maintain a choosen lifestyle, it is also including (hormonal contraceptives) drugs which are demonstrably *bad for you*. Hormonal birth control greatly increases cancer risks, blood clot risk, stroke, osteopreosis, weight gain, mood shifts, etc. The negative side effects of hormonal bc is so extensive that the handout would be shorter if they just listed side effects *not* found! The drugs are legal, but mandating that they be ‘free’ is like the government making everyone buy 1 cigarette a day for anyone who wanted one. You want to use something elective that greatly indangers your health and which has a real world failure rate that’s abysmal, *you* pay for it. There isn’t a single ethical, logical, religious, or Consitutional reason for it to be mandated ‘free’.
Let’s pretend for a moment we do live in China where there is NO religious liberty. Let’s pretend Obama isn’t doing this to be re-elected to the job he still isn’t capable of performing. Let’s pretend nobody objects to birth control being financed by everyone. OK?
Reminder: According to Guttmacher (not a pro-life-biased source), half of the females who procure abortions are using birth control. Half!!! If birth control were so wonderful and fail safe, then why are half the abortions used to kill children performed on women who are using the products that you want us to pay for??? Why, Joan? Please do tell us. Do tell us why we should all pay for an elective product that has proven to be so ineffective??
joan, 2:49PM
What drug would someone have a religious obligation to use?? I’ve heard of various reasons to use drugs but that’s a new one.
I find it hilarious that no one could refute Joan’s point. Also, by making this into an issue, you are helping Obama. Stop. Shut it.
Tangier, Joan’s point has been adressed and refuted.
Mary, actually there are several religions that mandate drug use as part of specific cerimonies, vodoun (voodoo), various tribal religions (from all over the world), rastafarianism, etc. Everything from powerful hallucinagentics used by natives in South America and Africa to marijuana lots of religions state you must use substances to alter your perception to make contact with the spirit world or to commune better with god(s).
You refuted nothing. In fact, you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of neutral laws of general applicability, which is weird, because it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like: a law that is applied equally to everyone it has force over; in this case, employers.
Joan, I addressed it, apparently it went over your head. A neutral law of applicablity has to be something that applies equally to all, meaning that it doesn’t force person X far more hardship than person Y. if you are making certain peoples violate fundamental beliefs, that’s putting a greater hardship upon them. Such has been upheld in circumstances before (where laws were rejcted or overturned because non-religious options were greater than religious options for example, just recently happened in Washington state).
Let’s move into a different areana. All high school students must compete in a sport. Simple, straightforward, but it can’t be considered a neutral general application, because it inheriently puts a greater burden upon some than others. It is unequal. To the healthy jock it means going to football, but to the sickly wheelchair bound asmatic it means extra equipment, extra stress, extra money, extra risk.
Mandating ‘free’ ‘reproductive services’ (excepting pregnancy care) might not bother Joe Average very much, but it sure as everything places an undue and unequal burden on those who disagree (for any reason) with such services. Since these services are elective, unecessary for the continuation of life, and already widely accessibly to anyone who wants them for their lifestyle, there is neither legal nor ethical grounds to enforce an unbalanced guarentee of free accessibility. It’s not a neutral law, it hits some harder than others.
Joan, I’m sorry, that was waspish of me. I’m not having a good day, very sick, and my patience is low. Let me try another way.
The ADA is a law such as you are refering to. It applies to everyone, but if it forces an unusual hardship one is exempt. For instance an airline can’t be forced to hire a blind pilot nor a machanics shop a paraplegic machanic. The lengths to which accomodations would have to be made for those people to fulfill the job requirements would place a greater than unusual demand upon the company and so it isn’t applicable. That’s because the law is neutral, it forces no greater harm on one company (person) than on another. Everyone has to make reasonable accomodations to say, hire a wheelchair bound individual to do word processing, which could include maybe the purchase of a different type of desk or different keyboard, or having a place where their service animal can lie down. But it does not single out certain peoples that are forced to make greater sacrifices than average. This mandate does. This mandate requires a *much* greater sacrifice from some companies by comparision to others, namely breaking trust with one’s religion, religious organization, or morals. It is *not* neutral as it does not require an equal sacrifice and exempt those who would be forced into a greater sacrifice.
Your understanding of “neutrality” has no basis in any case law or federal statute. A neutral law is one that is applied evenly, not one that has the end result of burdening everyone equally. Otherwise, using your own novel definition of neutrality, a law that forbids polygamous marriage would be a prima facie violation of the First Amendment rights of members of polygamous religious sects such as the FLDS Church.
Joan, apparently you don’t keep up with legal arguments, since polygamous religions have been arguing exactly that since the 1800’s furthermore there is CURRENTLY a case brought by a polygamous family before the state courts who are arguing that it is a direct prima facia violation of their 1st Amendment rights. A similiar court case just went all the way to the top courts in Canada, and was only narrowly defeated. Furthermore it’s the EXACT arguement usually used by employers who have been accused of ADA violations, as well as the defense brought by countless Churches and religious organizations (recently upheld by the Supreme Court) as to why they can hire/fire outside of the standard rules.
Joan, we can take religion out of it. The government has zero business dictating to ANY company what insurance or what product(s) it must provide.
Bmmg39, the problem with that (very correct!) line of argument is the present government has already proven they could get a rat’s whisker about that part of the Consitution. That argument will, hopefully, eventually toss obamacare as a whole as unconsitutional (waiting to go before the Supreme Court, think it’s scheduled for June or September), but it won’t do any good convincing people that agree with obamacare that *this* power grab is unconsitutional, they’ve already tossed that part of the Consitution in giving support to obamacare to begin with.
bmmg39: we can take religion out of it. The government has zero business dictating to ANY company what insurance or what product(s) it must provide.
bmmg, I’m not sure what all is the case, but there *are* some requirements for (at least some) employers.
While some employers don’t provide any health insurance at all, the Blunt Amendment, which got shot down today, was aimed at exempting employers from requirements where they had a religious objection to them. This was not just about contraception, this would have applied to anything so objected to.
My point is that even if we take religion and contraception out of the discussion, some employers already had some things they were required to do. You think that’s a bad idea, from start to finish?
Jespren: That argument will, hopefully, eventually toss obamacare as a whole as unconstitutional (waiting to go before the Supreme Court, think it’s scheduled for June or September)
Jespren, I’d like to see what the Supreme Court would say about the Catholic employers and health insurance-including contraception thing. Personally, after thinking about it for a few days, I think the mandate was wrong – there’s not a good enough reason to force employers to provide health insurance that includes things they feel are morally wrong, IMO.
On Obamacare – I’m not really for it, on balance. My wife’s and my situation probably means that we’re better off without the new health care laws. It’s big and complicated, and I don’t know all the pros and cons – heck, I don’t know 5% of them, probably. I do think that many small employers would just opt to pay the fine for non-compliance, rather than incur the higher cost of compliance.
Don’t know what the Supreme Court will say, but let’s say Romney is elected and tries to make good on his promise to do away with Obamacare. It’s not like there’s a switch that can just be turned off – it’d be a long, involved procedure. I guess we will see, whatever happens….
On the idea that “everybody” has to have health care coverage – I don’t see that as all negative. Let’s say a 30 year old guy decides not to pay the money, thinks he can get along without it. Then he rides his motorcycle, wipes out, and ends up in the hospital. Now, the hospital cannot legally turn him away, can they? I think they are required to provide him some treatment, health coverage or not. The associated costs would thus be paid by you and me – the people who do choose to be covered.
We have laws to ensure that employers meet certain responsiblities: fair hiring practices, workplace, safety, et cetera. But a company can choose to cover what it wants to or not. The oft-quoted question that’s been asked involves whether or not a Jehovah’s Witnesses employer can refuse to include blood transfusions in insurance coverage. My answer is “yes,” so long as this is made known to prospective employees up front. As in the contraceptives case, they then have the option to accept a position there or not.