Religious Liberty versus Women’s Health

According to John McCormack of The Weekly Standard, that’s the issue at hand surrounding the mandate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). At least, that’s the way the left would like to see the issue framed, and McCormack argues that liberty itself is the primary issue, and what is really at stake. Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention explained a solution that would settle the issue satisfactorily: provide a conscience clause that would allow for individuals and groups who have moral objections to contraception (as well as abortion) to opt out of the mandate that requires its provision. Supporters of the mandate object, saying that Americans would be at risk of having health care benefits provided for them if they were employed by such conscientious objectors. McCormack writes,

Supporters of the mandate are fighting back, arguing that legislation to restore the conscience protections that existed before Obamacare will leave Americans vulnerable. “You know, a Christian Science owner of a running shoe store could decide no health insurance,” [Democratic Senator Dick] Durbin said on Tuesday. Of course, for all of American history prior to the passage of Obamacare, shoe salesmen—whatever their religion—were free to pay their employees with money rather than health care benefits without facing fines from the federal government, yet the republic managed to survive.

He goes on to say,

It’s not at all clear who will win this fight. A CNN poll showed Americans oppose the administration’s policy 50 percent to 44 percent, but a CBS/New York Times poll found that 61 percent of Americans supported it. 

A lot depends on whether opponents can press the argument against Obama’s mandate from all angles. Can they get the word out that it’s not merely a “contraception mandate” but an “abortion mandate,” too? Can they make the case that the issue is religious liberty—or liberty more broadly—and not access to contraception? That all remains to be seen. But there’s no reason to think the issue will go away before November. For opponents, the election is the only opportunity to reverse the mandate.

Often, when considering the outcome of a championship ball game, a big decision about to be handed down by an employer, a debate between candidates for office, or a future election, people make the comment, “It’s going to be interesting to see how this turns out.” On this issue, it’s going to be more than “interesting.” If the constitutional principle of freedom of conscience is sidelined in favor of governmental bureaucratic fiat, we will have a game-changer. We will be living under a new order.

See McCormack’s article here.


4 responses to “Religious Liberty versus Women’s Health

  1. Oh man! And then there was that lady who argued when the people came up saying it was religious discrimination, and said, "Well where are the women in this?" It's like, okay, obviously you have no clue about the world around you. MANY women are against abortion. On top of that, in a way, she was discriminating against men! Saying their word wasn't enough. Nothing is valid unless women have a say in it. Nooo, a fact is a fact, and a belief is a belief. She really showed how much she lacked in the logical department with that statement.And really, this is religious tyranny. Forcing us to pay for something that we are avidly opposed to. It's scary almost. It's like, "wow, is this where what Revelation talks about starts?" I know that the world has always been bad, just in different ways (for instance, we no longer through our first borns into fires so we are saved from the gods' wrath,) but still…I can't help but wonder

  2. There's no "like" button like in Facebook so here it is: "Like." And another thing, I'm pretty sure she's a woman so is she not able to defend her views?

  3. Keep on this trail John. There's no where in the Constitution that says women have the right to prevent conception whenever they wish. I'm pretty sure that by not covering birth control by religious institutions, women aren't going to all of a sudden drop dead. This has nothing to do with women's health. The Constitution actually has something about freedom of religion on the contrary, and since liberals and their satanic ACLU love to bash Christians, Jews, etc. with the "separation of church and state" idea, its ironic that they are fighting against it. If religious institutions, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, have to cover birth control which is against their beliefs, then preachers should be able to preach how homosexuality is a sin at gay rights organizations, all protected by the government. If our culture wasn't obsessed with being sex animals then we wouldn't have this problem.

  4. Great point. If she's not doing an efficient job, that is entirely her fault.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s