Tag Archives: Contraception

Sebelius Gets Education on the Constitution but Left Might Get a Weapon

The First Amendment is bandied about more often than just about any of the others, and it got a full work-out thanks to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) during his grilling of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. It definitely is worth viewing, even if you’ve seen it before:

While that was undoubtedly painful for Sebelius, in theory, it may have opened a whole new can of worms. By taking it from the purely legal standpoint, Gowdy may have inadvertently opened an opportunity for the left on other issues, including abortion. Yes, there are religions out there that do not have strict restrictions against abortion, Judaism included. In theory, the left could use the same balancing act Gowdy used to justify preventing legislation against abortion, at least in the circumstances permitted by given religions.

Now, before anyone starts frothing at the mouth, that is an unlikely result of this little moment, if for no other reason, the left-wing would have to find people that observe those faiths to come forward and file lawsuits. That’s unlikely, of course.

But, the hearing did cause me to think yet again about the economic end of this perennial debate. Yet again, I am wondering about the feasibility of the I.R.S. adding a checkbox to tax forms that could settle it once and for all. If taxpayers could just tell the government whether or not they were willing to have their tax dollars be applied to public funds for contraception and/or abortion, then the crusade to end all abortions should be considered a purely religious movement. Arguably, it would be rendered moot, at least on the Federal level.

If no one is paying for something that they disagree with based on religious belief, then the government is not preventing anyone from observing their faith. Remember, the rights granted by the Bill of Rights end where the rights of another individual begin. That’s why those of us from the generally Libertarian neck of the woods don’t tend to join in social conservative crusades. It’s none of our business. It shouldn’t be the business of government. Gowdy had it right when he pointed out that Sebelius was wrong when she pushed the mandate for coverage of contraceptives. While what I’ve said here might annoy some social conservatives, keep in mind that I’m suggesting that we take Gowdy’s principle a step farther, and include individuals, not just religious institutions. If you personally do not believe it is moral to have contraceptives, your hard-earned money should not pay for it, ever. If you personally do not believe that abortion is acceptable for anyone, the same applies. But, that should be the extent of your rights. You do not have the right to force those that disagree with your belief system to comply with it. Fairly simple, so it’s highly unlikely it would work in this country. After all, we love having a government that could mess up a one man parade.

Crossposted at Goldwater Gal

Dear President Obama- free ammo!

 

Dear President Obama,

I applaud that chic who testified before the world that the right to free abortion drugs and contraception is more important than the right to free expression of religion. It helps us see clearly the only other problem that is actually more important: the right to free ammunition.

Let me be clear, it is a God given right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Well, with the recent price increases of all ammunition, including practice grade, that right is almost gone. I personally know students who can no longer afford to load their primary magazine to full capacity, let alone carry spares!

Now what about safety? Clearly a person who keeps and bears arms but cannot afford to practice is much more dangerous than one who hits what she’s aiming at. This economic issue has potential to result in increases in collateral damage during self defense shootings. Nine out of ten doctors surveyed prefer to keep the innocent bystanders from getting injured.

I’m also thinking of the poor innocent animals. PETA agrees they have a right to a clean humane one shot instant kill when being hunted. But with the skill of hunters slowly eroding due to the unjustifiable cost of practice rounds, they will be more likely to merely wound their intended prey, leaving them to die slowly and painfully.

Now an important point is that both cases underscore the right to personal protection. Contraception in the form of a barrier such as a condom protects against unwanted sexually transmitted diseases as well as pregnancy- most of the time. Unfortunately, even if you can convince the rapist to use a condom, there’s still the rape part.. NOW agrees properly loaded and available firearm also protects against unwanted sexually transmitted diseases in the case of attempted rape, but is more efficient in that the rape itself is prevented. That’s a good thing. And the bad guy gets to have his potential to rape again prevented should the firearm be used towards the offending area…

There are other economic impacts as well. Katherine Sebelius, secretary of health and human services recently pointed out that preventing a baby more than makes up for the cost of taking care of that baby. Indeed, preventing a violent criminal from going to jail is much more economically efficient than taking care of that murderer for life, even with the high cost of ammo. But of course, should the ammo be provided free by the government, the widespread use of defensive rounds will more than make up for the cost through the decrease in prison overcrowding. And of course that is more humane to the less violent felons who will have better accommodations and smaller classes which train them to reintegrate into society in meaningful ways and to vote Democrat.

Prevention of crime will also rise for all the poor and disenfranchised in the inner cities who have to pay a premium for ammo. It is truly racist that ammunition costs more in the areas where it is needed the most. I’ve taken the liberty of contacting the Reverend Jackson and he’s all in. The redistribution of ammunition from the rich 1% to the needy 99% is truly the highest form of social justice. If ghetto dwellers were able to afford ammo, the criminals would move away to other countries where they stand a better chance of perpetrating their crimes without the annoyance of risking injury. Like England.

Obviously, more ammunition available means more workers to manufacture it. People have to make the ammo. That translates into more green jobs. Recycling will increase for the brass that goes into the shell casings, so it is a green endeavor that will save the planet and decrease greenhouse gasses since no coal is used in the manufacturing process. Think Greenpeace.

So I think we can clearly see the multiple societal benefits from social justice, eliminating the debt crisis, all the way to saving the planet from one simple government program, and the full spectrum of special interest groups who will be grateful for your courage to lead in this area. I thank you for your agreement and hope to see the “Heaven on Earth through ballistic redistribution” bill passed real soon.

@mawmd

Ask for Abortion but settle on contraception in hopes of..

The focus is clearly on whether or not Obamacare is pushing contraception for all or whether or not Republicans want to restrict women’s access to contraception. This is not the latest volley against the pro-life crowd, nor is it the end goal.

First, we look for the beginning of the Obama administration’s new strategy. It is not when the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that Obamacare would force Catholic organizations to violate their fundamental beliefs and provide, if not at least pay for, contraceptive services. Nope, that wasn’t the beginning.

The start, at least during the current Presidential administration, was in a Presidential debate. George Stephanopoulos, prior Clinton White House adviser, tried to push Mitt Romney on whether or not states could ban contraception.

During and shortly after the debate, many were left scratching their heads at the odd line of questioning – “why would George ask such a ridiculous question?”. Now, we know. This was to plant the idea that it could happen, that it might happen and that it would be the Republican candidates that would do everything in their power to prevent every woman from having absolute reproductive freedom (a terrible, semantically-overloaded term).

Why are the Democrats backing off of Abortion and making contraception an election year issue? Republicans have no problem with women buying the pill, diaphragms, rubbers, nuvarings, implants.. whatever. There is no anti-contraception lobby, anti-pill party or down-with-diaphragms PAC. It’s because they’re admitting defeat on publicly-funded abortion and need to try an end-around.

Remember Planned Parenthood? Remember the fights around Obamacare funding for abortion? Those are the battles they lost. Now, they’re playing to win – the presidency and a toe-hold on future pro-abortion regulations.

They can’t get abortion funded by taxpayers – they’ve been trying. So now the fight is to get contraception paid for by taxpayers to pave the way for “free” abortions for all.

Some are yelling contraceptive freedom, equal healthcare rights for women and numerous other irrelevancies. The Constitution does NOT provide for rubbers, the pill, spermacide or anything of the sort. In fact, it doesn’t provide for health care at all.

The progressive liberals are doing what they always do – advance the argument past the base point and get everyone to argue over the small points. The real issue is that while life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are protected by the framing document – me paying for anyone else’s pursuits is not .. at all.

Another way of putting is it how it was put in a short conversation in the movie “The Rum Diaries”. A character says, “suppose you want to raise taxes by 5%. You might propose raising taxes by 10%. The people will run about and yell about it. You’ll say let’s compromise, say 7% and perhaps land at 5 – exactly where you intended.” That is what this whole contraception mess is about – asking for more and settling for less as a road to having it all.

That’s the crux of it all. While a bastardization of the general welfare clause may somehow protect a women’s ability to abort unborn babies, it does not force me to pay for it. While being equal in the eyes of the law may mean that contraception should be available, it does not force me to pay for someone else’s desire to have sex without consequences. Having a right simply means that the government may not prevent your from pursuing that freedom. The government is not required to gift wrap it and deliver it to your front door.

A right is simply something that may not be taken away or infringed. It is not the same as an entitlement, where someone should expect that it will be provided. The second amendment secures my right to own a gun, it does not require taxpayers to buy me one – nor would I ever expect that they would. Understand the difference – it will be paramount to surviving the onslaught on our rights and sensibilities that the left has planned for the coming months. This is only the beginning.

-un-change, re-hope, success in 2012

Rich Mitchell’s opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Conservative Daily News, Anomalous Media, its staff or.. anyone else

Obama ‘Adjustment’ Endangers Liberty of All

STAFFORD, Va., Feb. 13, 2012  — Paul Rondeau, executive director of American Life League, issued this statement regarding President Obama’s announcement of an “adjustment” to his HHS/Obamacare mandate that all insurance policies must cover contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilization for “free.”

“In the midst of a firestorm he himself created by dictating abortion funding via private insurance on religiously affiliated organizations, Obama’s solution is to expand his abortion funding scheme even further.

“There is no such thing as free insurance. This ‘adjustment’ means that every man, women, and child with private insurance is now forced to subsidize abortion drugs, contraception, and sterilization just by paying their insurance premiums.

“The danger in dealing with the visions of the self-anointed is that they come to believe that they are justified in forcing their will on the less enlightened. In President Obama’s case, that means everybody who disagrees with him.

“This is not only a slap in the face to Catholics and a violation of the rights of all who hold religious or conscious objections. This president’s obsession with abortion has led him to betray his oath of office, the United States Constitution, and the citizens of America for whom he works.

“Obama’s willingness to violate the rights of one person or one group puts the liberty of all Americans –including so-called ‘pro-choicers’– at risk. It is obvious that this president does not feel constrained by either the Constitution or the will of the people.

“We call on all citizens, all religious leaders, and all elected representatives to demand that President Obama reverse course immediately.”

Obama 'Adjustment' Endangers Liberty of All

STAFFORD, Va., Feb. 13, 2012  — Paul Rondeau, executive director of American Life League, issued this statement regarding President Obama’s announcement of an “adjustment” to his HHS/Obamacare mandate that all insurance policies must cover contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and sterilization for “free.”

“In the midst of a firestorm he himself created by dictating abortion funding via private insurance on religiously affiliated organizations, Obama’s solution is to expand his abortion funding scheme even further.

“There is no such thing as free insurance. This ‘adjustment’ means that every man, women, and child with private insurance is now forced to subsidize abortion drugs, contraception, and sterilization just by paying their insurance premiums.

“The danger in dealing with the visions of the self-anointed is that they come to believe that they are justified in forcing their will on the less enlightened. In President Obama’s case, that means everybody who disagrees with him.

“This is not only a slap in the face to Catholics and a violation of the rights of all who hold religious or conscious objections. This president’s obsession with abortion has led him to betray his oath of office, the United States Constitution, and the citizens of America for whom he works.

“Obama’s willingness to violate the rights of one person or one group puts the liberty of all Americans –including so-called ‘pro-choicers’– at risk. It is obvious that this president does not feel constrained by either the Constitution or the will of the people.

“We call on all citizens, all religious leaders, and all elected representatives to demand that President Obama reverse course immediately.”

Proving the Slippery Slope

“It’s a slippery slope” – yeah .. that one. What if instead of a cliche, it were proved to exist – that slope of slip?

The Obama administration is still working out their strategy against the 1st amendment – more specifically the freedom of religion. They first tried to force Catholic churches, schools and facilities to pay for “contraceptive services”. That would first include birth control pills – but could easily be expanded to force the church to pay for plan B pills and even abortions. All of these are in direct opposition to the church’s teachings.

While Obama has pretended to back off the contraception ruling by allowing churches an exemption, he would still force their insurance companies to pay for services that the church is against. How is that more-aligned to the religious beliefs of the Catholic faithful? Anyone that believes Obama has given in or negotiated is believing the hype instead of analyzing the situation. He has simply found the spot at the top of the slippery slope that most Americans would accept.

Pre-born babies aren’t the only targets of the most oppressive regime in American history – now Obama is after the highly successful teachers at charter schools in an attempt to kill these non-union, non-NEA and very successful competitors to the failing schools system that the President firmly supports.

If we let Obama beat down the best teachers who have been attracted to a  better system of education and we let him suppress the beliefs of a large swath of Americans – who is to blame?

These are the issues that we must consider in the ballot box. These are the issues that every American must remind their members of Congress that they are upset with.

If you have not written your member of Congress about either – you are letting the government into increasingly personal parts of your life. Perhaps contraception of charter schools aren’t a big issue for you, but if you don’t fight this, it will not be long until the government goes after that which you hold dear. This is the line that must be held – the line at the edge of a very slippery slope indeed.

here’s how you find your member of Congres:

Just enter your zip code and email, call, write, protest.

Attorneys General letter against Obama’s Contraception Policy

Obamacare is pushing religious organizations to perform duties and tasks that are in direct contradiction to their beliefs. Three Attorneys General from Texas, Nebraska and South Carolina have c0-written a letter to remind the Obama administration that what President Obama is asking is unconstitutional and immoral.

Whether or not an American agrees with the organizations, a citizen must decide that seeing the federal government decide what a religious groups may or may not believe in is exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been using the first amendment to slowly, but surely, dismantle religion by removing its influences from anything remotely related to government. The ten commandments have been pulled from court houses, the golden rule yanked from schools and prayer not allowed on school grounds or at athletic events.

Most may not find trouble with the action the government is taking. It won’t be long until the government decides that another group must do something for the common good. Maybe it’s gun ranges, maybe it’s steak or pork – once Americans allow the government to oppressively decided what one group can or cannot do, it is not much longer until it is telling all groups what they may not do.

In a total bastardization of the Constitution, progressives have decided that the needs of the government outweigh those of the individual – fight this or your prized right may be next and there will be no one left to fight beside you.

 

Catholic group suing to stop Obama’s contraception regulation

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y., Feb. 9, 2012  — Priests for Life, a New York based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, today announced that it will be filing a lawsuit against the Obama Administration in an effort to seek injunctive relief from impending regulations that would require the organization to pay for employee health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

The Obama Administration’s rules — recently brought forth by a decree from the Department of Health and Human Services — are part of the controversial “ObamaCare” health insurance law (the so-called “Affordable Care Act”) that was passed by Congress in 2010 amidst endless ambiguities, confusion, and false assurances by President Obama himself that it would never be used to violate any organization’s or individual’s conscience on moral issues.

Now that the new HHS rules have been formally issued, however, Americans of all faiths are stunned that the Obama Administration is going to require employers to provide health insurance coverage for certain acts that go directly against their consciences or religious beliefs.

The lawsuit will seek injunctive relief from the HHS rules — first on behalf of Priests for Life, and hopefully extending universally since all organizations and companies will be affected by the tyrannical HHS decree. Priests for Life is particularly well placed to pursue this litigation because its primary purposes are to promote and protect life whereas the primary purposes of the contraceptive mandate are to prevent and destroy life.

According to Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, “It’s unthinkable that President Obama would force Americans of any faith to violate their consciences. Yet here he is, arrogantly imposing these regulations that clearly discriminate against Catholics and all Christians, as well as people of any faith who believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. This has clearly become a human rights case — and is no longer just a partisan political football.”

Priests for Life has retained noted civil rights attorney Charles LiMandri of San Diego to represent them in their lawsuit against Obama. LiMandri achieved national distinction by saving the famous “Mt. Soledad Cross” — a historic war memorial that had been erected on public property many decades ago, which local atheists sought to have torn down. He has also fought for the rights of San Diego firefighters who were forced to participate in a vulgar “gay pride” parade against their will or else face termination. He was also the General Counsel for the National Organization for Marriage — California during the successful Proposition 8 Campaign to save traditional marriage.

LiMandri remarks, “This is the first time in history any administration has used brute force to compel someone to violate his conscience or moral convictions. It’s unheard of. It’s also antithetical to the core American principles of religious liberty and freedom from invasions of privacy. We intend to fight the ill-conceived HHS edict and challenge it on constitutional grounds. This case could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And we’ll be happy to take it there if need be.”

Catholic group suing to stop Obama's contraception regulation

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y., Feb. 9, 2012  — Priests for Life, a New York based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, today announced that it will be filing a lawsuit against the Obama Administration in an effort to seek injunctive relief from impending regulations that would require the organization to pay for employee health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

The Obama Administration’s rules — recently brought forth by a decree from the Department of Health and Human Services — are part of the controversial “ObamaCare” health insurance law (the so-called “Affordable Care Act”) that was passed by Congress in 2010 amidst endless ambiguities, confusion, and false assurances by President Obama himself that it would never be used to violate any organization’s or individual’s conscience on moral issues.

Now that the new HHS rules have been formally issued, however, Americans of all faiths are stunned that the Obama Administration is going to require employers to provide health insurance coverage for certain acts that go directly against their consciences or religious beliefs.

The lawsuit will seek injunctive relief from the HHS rules — first on behalf of Priests for Life, and hopefully extending universally since all organizations and companies will be affected by the tyrannical HHS decree. Priests for Life is particularly well placed to pursue this litigation because its primary purposes are to promote and protect life whereas the primary purposes of the contraceptive mandate are to prevent and destroy life.

According to Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, “It’s unthinkable that President Obama would force Americans of any faith to violate their consciences. Yet here he is, arrogantly imposing these regulations that clearly discriminate against Catholics and all Christians, as well as people of any faith who believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. This has clearly become a human rights case — and is no longer just a partisan political football.”

Priests for Life has retained noted civil rights attorney Charles LiMandri of San Diego to represent them in their lawsuit against Obama. LiMandri achieved national distinction by saving the famous “Mt. Soledad Cross” — a historic war memorial that had been erected on public property many decades ago, which local atheists sought to have torn down. He has also fought for the rights of San Diego firefighters who were forced to participate in a vulgar “gay pride” parade against their will or else face termination. He was also the General Counsel for the National Organization for Marriage — California during the successful Proposition 8 Campaign to save traditional marriage.

LiMandri remarks, “This is the first time in history any administration has used brute force to compel someone to violate his conscience or moral convictions. It’s unheard of. It’s also antithetical to the core American principles of religious liberty and freedom from invasions of privacy. We intend to fight the ill-conceived HHS edict and challenge it on constitutional grounds. This case could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And we’ll be happy to take it there if need be.”

Could Obama’s “contraception requirement” be on the way out?

From the Wall Street Journal:

The White House said Thursday it has no plans to reverse course on its decision to require that all employers cover contraception in their insurance plans, despite a wave of criticism from Republicans and Catholic leaders.

After a bruising week for health officials on the issue, the White House arranged a conference call with reporters to address what it called “confusion” over the policy. It also put up a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, director of the House Domestic Policy Council, pointing out that “no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception” and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

So the White House says that its decision on forcing American businesses to cover contraception is final.  That’s cute and all, but it is just one more example of the foolishness of this president and the way his health care law was written.  It also serves as a great illustration of why our federal government’s dependence on executive agencies as a whole is incompatible with effective government.

Despite what President Obama may like to believe, this issue is far from dead.  The contraception requirement isn’t a law that was passed through Congress – it’s just a regulation that came out of the Department of Health and Human Services.

That means that when a Republican president is inaugurated in 2013, he can simply get some new people in place at HHS that will repeal it for him.  Then, the next time a Democrat is elected president, he can reinstate the contraception requirement.  And back and forth forever.  How stable!!  That will definitely help businesses plan for the future.

This instability is one of many reasons that rule-making by executive agency wasn’t provided for in the Constitution.  By creating a fairly deliberate law-making process (along with electing only 1/3 of the Senate every two years), our Founders made it much less likely that one Congress would pass a law only to have the next come along and immediately repeal it.  That type of stability and dependability create exactly the type of environment that is necessary for freedom and economic prosperity to thrive.

So despite the laughable insistence by the White House that this issue has been decided, the debate has only begun.  That is good news for any one who believes that the President has no business dictating what Americans spend their money on.  The bad news is, the threat posed to everyone’s freedom by our government’s crack-like dependence on executive agencies to make laws doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

H/T to Tina Korbe at Hotair.com.