Tuesday, March 5, 2013

It's Not About Contraceptives [Best of the Tales-repeat]

Tales on vacation- "Best of the Tales" repeat post.
This was originally posted on Feb. 14, 2012- then re-posted with an update video.

Note: As you read this post the fetching Mrs. B and I will be at some undisclosed place on vacation.  The place we are at cannot be pried from my lips or my fingers.  And don't try to find out either because what goes on in this place stays in this place.  :-)
___________________________________________________________

The Constitution of the United States of America: The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is no coincidence that the first freedom protected in the constitution was religious freedom. The founders understood without this freedom, we would not be free.

The Obama administration, if they care about the Constitution [and that is very dubious] should read that Amendment again [or maybe I should say for the first time].  The recent HHS ruling, to this constitutional novice, seems to be contrary to the freedom of religion clause.

On January 20, 2012     The Department of Health and Human Services  [HHS] Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius,  announced the decision  that while churches [Catholic] would not have to pay for contraceptives [and day after pills, and sterilizations], other associations linked to churches, such as schools, hospitals and charitable agencies would not have any exemption.

First of all, I always thought health care insurance was insurance to help with the cost of sickness, or disease, or hospitalization, or true preventive measures against sickness.  In announcing the decision to make all insurance plans cover contraception and day after abortion pills, etc., HHS said they were doing this because it was preventive medicine.  What?  Yes, it is preventative to a woman becoming pregnant, but not to keep a healthy person from getting some disease or sickness.  That is, of course, unless the Obama administration considers being pregnant a sickness or disease.  

Secondly, this shows one of the main oppositions to Obamacare.  It gives HHS the power to determine what is and what is not included in our health insurance plans; whether we want them or need them or whether it goes against our religious teachings.   Congressman Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, said "we would find out what is in it [Obamacare], after we pass the bill."  Now we are sadly finding out. Believe me, this is just the beginning.

The HHS determined that the day after pill is a medical preventative measure and must be included in Obamacare insurance.  The Obama administration has said that having contraceptive measures included in every one's insurance plan actually saves money, because it would lead to not having to deal with health measures in the future [i.e., no baby with health problems to deal with].

Couldn't they also make the same arguments about abortion. They could say that it is a preventative measure and would save money [in future health payouts], so it must be included in every health insurance plan.  If Obamacare is not ruled unconstitutional, or abolished in congress, what is to stop them?  Then, they could force the Catholic Church through their charities and hospitals to cover abortions in their health insurance plans. They would call it a woman's rights issue and arrogantly tell the Church not to worry because the insurance companies will pay for it.    What would be the difference of that and what they are doing now?

A big majority of Americans [including me] are in favor of contraceptive measures when trying to delay having a baby.  But that is not the issue here.   Obamacare [through the HHS] is forcing the Catholic Church [through their hospitals, schools, charities etc.,] to require coverage on something that is deeply against their religious teachings.  You may not be Catholic, and you may disagree strongly with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but how would you feel if the federal government forced your religion to go against its principles and beliefs?  Wouldn't you want people who believe in religious freedom to speak out on your behalf then?

The Obama administration is trying to portray this as a woman's right issue, i.e., that women should not be denied contraception. That is totally bogus. No woman would be stopped from getting contraceptives if this ruling was not in there.  It would just mean that not every health care insurance plan would be forced to pay for them.

Hugh Hewitt said on his radio show he has a post about this on the Hugh Hewitt blog site.
While Ronald Reagan told Americans "It's Morning in America, Again.", Hugh Hewitt entitles his post: "Obama's 'It's Morning-After In America Again" Campaign' "

While this ruling may seem to be an assault on the Catholic religion, it is really an assault on all religious freedom.

Mike Huckabey said it best, "We are all Catholics, now."

I put it this way: You don't have to be Catholic to think that the first amendment to the constitution must be obeyed.

I am not against contraceptives.  I am against any law or mandate that violates religious freedom.
__________________________________________________________________
Update:  Tales is happy to add this brilliant analysis by the great Dr. Charles Krauthammer on May 23's Special Report's All Star Panel on the Fox News Channel.  He states, in a much more eloquent way than Tales can,  that the issue is not about contraceptives, but religious freedom.


4 comments:

bradley said...

I tend to agree that this is an issue of religious freedom and the government should not infringe on that--but i also feel they should not infringe on a woman's personal right to choose,we need MORE contaception and less unwanted babies, a lot more cost effective result. as a consrvative, i also want less government including getting them out of my wife's bedroom and out of her inherit right to choice. Thanks for good post big mike.

Big Mike said...

Thanks big Brad for your thoughtful comments! I appreciate them.

Anonymous said...

After hearing about sex selection abortions which is being discussed in the House now, I am heartbroken as to how we are turning into such callous human beings. Can you say China? This group of people in the WH are turning us against one another, and in the end, if re-elected we will not be America. Abortion is NOT birthcontrol. We now have sonograms. There are many means to delay birth in the modern world here in the West.
Talk about war on women!
Heartbroken in ATX!
Krissy

Big Mike said...

The fact that this president is divider in chief trying to tear people of this country apart for political gain is the main reason I want to see him go. I don't care if we had full employment I would want this man to be defeated for what he is doing to this country.
All the talk about he is such a likable man, I don't see it. He's not likable to me, Krissy. Thanks for your comments!!