Obama’s Compromise: I’ll Just Mandate That Employers Contract With Insurers To Cover Contraception For Free, and Hence Employers Cannot Be Said To Be Paying For It
The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and the potentially abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug
According to Obama administration officials on a conference call this morning, a woman’s insurance company “will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it.”
The birth control and abortion-causing drugs will simply be “part of the bundle of services that all insurance companies are required to offer,” White House officials said.
So here’s how this works.
I’m an insurer. Here were your two options, before Obama’s brilliant solution:
I could cover your employees for x dollars.
If you want birth control/abortifacient coverage, we’ll add that rider for y dollars. So this option is x + y dollars.
Obama’s genius solution is:
Hey, we’ll cover your employees for x + y dollars as a baseline. But we’ll toss in abortifacient coverage for 0 dollars.
Uhhh… That x+y is what it cost to have base insurance + birth control/abortifacient coverage. All that’s being done here is that people are lying about the costs — now the insurer and the contracting party lie and pretend the base insurance cost is x + y (which it isn’t; it’s x) and also pretend the cost for the birth control coverage is 0 (which it isn’t; it’s y).
All Obama’s doing is mandating that employers enter into a contract with insurers in which both parties pretend that the base cost of the service is higher than it is, and that abortifacient coverage now costs zero dollars.
Obama’s mandate solution is now just to force the conscience-objectors to lie about it. He
The old mandate was just to provide abortifacents. The “solution” just adds a new mandate on top of that one: That you lie about that fact in a legal contract.
This new “solution” is the same one you had before: You always had the option to lie to yourself that you were not part of the abortion providing industry, if you liked.
The only change is now that option is mandatory.
Obama’s actual policy doesn’t change, nor does the coercion against you. Just a new coercion is added — that you lie about it — to insulate him from the political consequences of his policy.
on obummer and his tin ear to liberty and freedom
* Obama is apparently dumber than we thought. He knew that forcing religious organizations to pay for contraception — and abortifacients — would be controversial, but he thought it would play out as, “This is about contraception; no one finds contraception controversial anymore.” Of course, it’s played out as religious liberty issue, which is huge deal to Americans. But Mr. Bitter Clinger isn’t really in tune with Americans, so it caught him by surprise.
Obama: no useful experience or abilities, arrogant, and completely out of touch with the concerns of regular Americans — I’m starting to think he might be a bad president.
* Government dependence has shot up 23% under Obama. He probably considers that a success — “Look at how many more people government is helping!” — but he’s an idiot. And now that’s just another obstacle to cutting government; you get people dependent on it, and then they’ll freak out like a guy going through withdrawal if you try to take it away.
We have a lot of problems with our government in this country, and we’re not going to fix it without some sort of long term plan. Does anyone running actually offer that?
* Liberals now love drone strikes and keeping Gitmo open. Ends up all the things they screamed about most were just partisan bluster. Who could have guessed that… other than anyone who has ever dealt with the left before.
What are the core beliefs that liberals have that they will turn on their own side if a Democrat goes against them? That babies should be aborted? I think that’s about it. Basically just any view they feel to guilty about to ever walk back on.
So we now have a right to force other people to pay for something we think we need. Yay.
We need a national point of order on exactly what a “right” is. We have a lot of “slavery is freedom” going on.
If you think you have a right to a job, food, and a place to live, slavery does provide all of that.
and finally on this subject~~~~
On the Church, the Military, and the Descent into Tyranny
By Fay Voshell
The heart of America resides in its free institutions.
In a republic committed to freedom, the church and the military, two of the country’s most powerful organizations, must be allowed to construct and to follow the ethical guidelines, codes of conduct, internal rules, and hallowed rituals they themselves create without interference from the federal and state governments.
In other words, the military –with self-limiting exceptions its specific duties and focus may require — and the Church must have the freedom to define themselves, and must have the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights without qualification to all Americans.
If both are not allowed by an increasingly arrogant administration to retain the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they risk losing their authentic and free consciences entirely.
In turn, when the conscience of an institution is corrupted and/or hijacked by another ethical paradigm, it loses its unique moral identity and purpose and is at the service of an alien ethos. It becomes the tool of another force, regardless of whether or not it retains emptied symbols and rituals.
The free conscience of the Marine Corps, for example, as in other branches of services, resides in two main places.
First, the corps itself has ethical and spiritual codes of conduct every Marine is supposed to follow:
The Corps is an elite fraternity, a spiritual brotherhood. Entry is a calling. For most, earning the title is closely akin to becoming a priest. Yet, the ethos of the Warrior Culture of the Marines is simple: prowess in combat.
Each U.S. Marine, past and present, has entered more than just the Brotherhood of Marines. He has become, and will always remain, part of a mystical fellowship of valor. He must comply with hallowed rituals. He must conform to an uncompromising code of honor, discipline, and personal integrity.
Second, the individual conscience of the soldier must remain free.
The mentors of the spiritual ethos of the individual soldier are its commanding officers and, perhaps more especially, its chaplains. Chaplains in particular are the spiritual guides of the soldier’s individual conscience. They are the ones who share the soldier’s hardships, providing spiritual strength and comfort in times of duress, whether it is on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of Iraq, or in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Chaplains are with America’s warriors in life and in death.
To that end, they must be free to proclaim the ethos undergirding the faith and to instruct individual adherents to the faith without interference by the secular state.
But the conscience of people of faith, including military chaplains and members of our military, is increasingly threatened by the anti-religious sentiment of our current administration, which is seeking effectively to silence chaplains who are speaking out about the overreach of the government’s health care mandates concerning birth control and sterilization.
The mandate objected to by military chaplains, as noted in a previous article for American Thinker, is one which insists that the Catholic Church provide access to health insurance containing provisions for abortifacients and sterilization to all employees of its institutions.
The particular object of the wrath of the executive branch involved the reading by Catholic chaplains of a letter opposing the mandate to soldiers. One particular line in the letter was objected to by the chief of chaplains, who said he was concerned that the statement “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was a call for civil disobedience.
Not content with admonition of military chaplains who dared speak out against the edict, the administration also sought to censor Archbishop Timothy Broglio, archbishop for military services, who called the health care injunctions “unjust.”
Broglio replied to efforts to censor his protests with a strong statement to Catholic soldiers:
It is imperative that I call to your attention to an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be ‘of, by, and for the people,’ has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faith. It is a blow to a freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.
Is Archbishop Broglio’s defense of freedom of conscience to be seen as a seditious call to insurrection? Are U.S. military chaplains calling for mutiny among the ranks?
This administration seems to think so.
But since when is it insurrection to follow the principles of one’s faith, refusing to obey a law against one’s conscience, and particularly a mandate having to do with birth control and sterilization? Just how is the might of the military compromised by soldiers who object to abortifacients?
The individual soldier must follow orders of his superiors and commanding officers as regards his duties as a soldier. He is not required to sacrifice his conscience in matters of faith and practice of his religion.
If a chaplain can be commanded to change his archbishop’s letter calling a government policy unjust; if he can be called seditious for reading the letter; if he can be commanded to change or expurgate the words of his spiritual superior, the archbishop; if the archbishop himself can be commanded to censor statements about Church doctrines and practices, then religious freedom and free speech in this country are dead, and no American is safe from attack by his own government.
The attack on Catholic chaplains, and by implication on every other chaplain who dares resist government directives against conscience, is especially ominous when viewed in combination with the recent National Defense Authorization Act. As Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi points out, the law allows “seditious” Americans to be detained indefinitely if they fit the fungible and vague definition of “terrorist” as outlined by that law.
No American can walk free when “terrorism” and “sedition” are so broadly defined that to call a measure “unjust” is viewed as seditious and as an incitement to insurrection. No citizen dare speak out against the current administration, including matters of faith and religious practice, without fear of repercussions that include condemnation without trial and incarceration without an end.
It is only fair to ask what happens when the military is subject exclusively to the state’s “conscience,” centered in and proclaimed by one branch of government and/or one man.
When only power matters and commands must be followed without regard to ethics, anything is possible, and anything can be done without the restriction of conscience. War is always a terrible enterprise, but when it is undertaken by soldiers whose consciences are in every aspect completely in thrall to the dictates of a given government, it is Hell indeed.
Certainly we have enough examples from history of conscience-cleansed troops who claimed that “I was only following orders.”
Let’s be clear: the concern on the part of radical secularists attacking the Church and the military is not the danger of insurrection. The true goal is the replacement of the current spiritual ethos of the American military and even the Church with a radically secular ethos. It is the subjection of conscience to the boot of the state.