A few days ago, during a political debate of sorts, an acquaintance suggested that the constitution should not be used to determine what is and is not a right. This person was specifically reffering to the current patient and affordable act which he said was "irrelevant" to whether or not women's "rights" were under oppression by the Catholic Church. I had to pause for a second in order to process the accusation. Let me bring in a metaphor to illustrate my thoughts on this subject. Suppose someone decided to drop you off a cliff. As the culprit holds you 10,000 feet above the ground, you beg him to reconsider because you are afraid and want to live. In return he looks at you blankly and without comprehension. He says to you that it is irrelevant that you are afraid... after all, he is standing safely on the ground (which is arguably a very safe place for him to stand). He continues to try and calm you by informing you that he bought blue suede shoes last week for only $20! You continue waving your hands in the air telling them to stop this madness because honestly, shoes are the last thing on your mind. Finally, he gets irritated and begins to accuse you of ignoring him. So he loosens his grip entirely. The last thing you hear as you plummet 1000 km per hour towards the ground is the voice of the man still yelling, "Don't worry so much; I'll be fine!" The point that I'm trying to make with this metaphor is this: if you are the guy standing on solid ground, it's easy to stay calm. You aren't the one dangling over the cliff or having your rights violated.
Catholic Institutions are self insured. When forced to "compromise" Obama promised that religious institutions no longer had to provide contraceptives, but that their insurers will. The problem with this "compromise" is that most Catholic institutions are insured by Catholic insurance agencies. This means that Catholic insurance companies will have to pay for contraceptives.
With that having been said, I currently work for a company who will have to provide contraceptive services at the expense of my dollar. Yes, Obama's "new" plan essentially did nothing. It's like instead of taking candy from a baby... you pay a bully to do it for you. That way, you aren't actually taking the candy from the baby, someone else is. Clever, clever.
The government knows that the contraceptives (which will promote the act of sex and thus spread of STD's) and abortive pills (which usually increase the likelihood of cancer and hormonal inbalances) can currently be attained from almost anywhere. For an example, the halls of my old university. You want a condom? Go to the bathroom and you can buy one for a quarter. We are not arguing whether or not people should have contraceptives available to them. We are arguing whether it is an essential right guaranteed by the constitution which is why the government wants so desperately for Catholics to be forced to purchase the product. (Despite the direct violation of the constitution)
Obama's new plan allows for religious exemptions. For example, some Muslims and Amish are exempt because they view insurance as a form of gambling, which is forbidden by their religious laws. This further demonstrates the law's personal bias against Catholicism. Furthermore states are allowed to disallow Aids and Cancer treatments in their plans as they see fit. These sound like essential health services to me. Here are more ways that this is unconstitutional as cited by:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/02-28-12-Lori-Testimony-for-House-Judiciary-long-form.pdf:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/02-28-12-Lori-Testimony-for-House-Judiciary-long-form.pdf:
"Gender equality—because the mandate only pertains to preventive services for women, it requires coverage of tubal ligations, but not vasectomies.
Service to all in need—religious organizations lose their exemption under the 4- part test if they primarily serve those outside their faith, giving the organizations a strong incentive to curtail their work for the neediest in society.
Freedom of choice—people and groups that are still forced by government to fund and facilitate sterilization and contraception over their religious objections have no choice.
Separation of church and state—the mandate has the government both interfering with the internal affairs of religious organizations, and favoring some religious organizations over others by means of the restrictive 4-part test.
...
Thus, although HHS will brook no dissent regarding whether sterilization and contraception, including abortifacients, must be covered as “preventive services,” HHS is essentially indifferent regarding what is—or is not—mandated as an “essential health benefit.” As a result, genuinely indispensable items under the important rubrics listed above may well be omitted from coverage, depending on the policy preferences of each state. By contrast, states have no such discretion with respect to sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients—these must be covered, even over religious objections in many cases.
Taking just one example of “essential health benefits”—prescription drugs—the state may define this category to require coverage of cancer drugs, AIDS drugs, and other life-saving treatments. But HHS has no quarrel with a state that decides not to require coverage of drugs like these. By contrast, HHS requires that state to cover drugs that, according to respected medical studies and the drugs’ manufacturers, may increase women’s risk of suffering from breast cancer, stroke and AIDS."
Here are some articles that address the effectiveness of Obama's plan for ruling the world, (and indeed that is what he is attempting... I am confused at how willingly people followed that ploy):
Philpott, A., Knerr, W., & Maher, D. (2006, December 2). Promoting protection and pleasure: amplifying the effectiveness of barriers against sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy. Lancet. pp. 2028-2031. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69810-3.
This study shows that contraceptives vary in effectiveness. Anywhere from 60%-95% effectiveness for preventing STD's, where 95% is not the mean but instead an outlier... In addition to this the number abortions have doubled in Spain as a result of easy access of contraceptives in their society.
Now someone is bound to say, and indeed they have, that "the study was flawed because our societies are different", to which I say the following: the way a study works is simple. You introduce a variable that is not typically there and you watch the effects after adding that variable. This has been the method for science for quiet some time now, we cannot continually play the "science is not fool proof" card only now that the Catholic Church has entered the boxing ring. It would be like giving all boxers boxing gloves and the Catholic Church a pillow. I think it is time that we call out the contradictions of the media and its stance that science is fool proof when it is convenient, but also fallible when it is also convenient. What happened in Spain is discredited because science is fallible, but contraception is trusted completely because the science is infallible.
In the situation with Spain, contraceptives were introduced and the abortion rate rose. We need to learn from the mistakes of other nations. The reason I posted this is because a massive wave of liberals have begun attacking the Catholic Church and accusing her of oppressing women. I find the view Ironic because no other institution promotes the dignity of women more than the Catholic Church. Indeed, it is ironic because society oppresses women, not the One, Holy, and Apostolic Catholic Church.
When Society says that sex should be something that people do freely, the Catholic Church says, "Wait... please, for the dignity of women." We do not want men walking the street talking about how badly they want to go and "bang" another girls. When society says that pornography is a means of entertainment and a right that needs to be provided to the public, it is the Catholic Church that says that society is degrading the value of women and that it needs to stop. When society releases article upon article on the damaging affects of sexualization of women in society to the point where women are discriminated in the work force, are performing worse in school, aren't taken seriously in society, and are payed less in the work force, the Catholic Church is the only one that even suggests that we take a stand. Saying that the Catholic Church causes any of these problems is like saying slim fast causes obesity because people don't like to drink things that make them healthy. =/
I will end this with a quote by G.K. Chesterton. "Society is becoming a secret society. The modern tyrant is evil because of his elusiveness. He is more nameless than his slave. He is not more of a bully than the tyrants of the past; but he is more of a coward."
I will end this with a quote by G.K. Chesterton. "Society is becoming a secret society. The modern tyrant is evil because of his elusiveness. He is more nameless than his slave. He is not more of a bully than the tyrants of the past; but he is more of a coward."
Arguments for a "religious employer" exemption have gone from wrong to ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteQuestions about the government requiring or prohibiting something that conflicts with someone’s faith are real, but not new. Confronted with such issues, the courts have ruled that under the Constitution the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion (which would be regarded a constraint on religious liberty contrary to the First Amendment), but can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g., laws concerning pollution, contracts, crimes, discrimination, employment, etc.) and can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them.
The real question here is not whether the First Amendment precludes government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether government should, as a matter of grace, exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences.
Those demanding an exemption initially worked themselves into a lather with the false claim that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers' religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), the law plainly does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.
Some nonetheless continued complaining that by paying assessments they would be paying for the very things they opposed--seemingly missing that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather a gripe common to most taxpayers, who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. In any event, they put up enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required. Problem solved–again, even more.
Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They theorize that the "Catholic dollars" they pay to others, e.g., insurers or employees, should remain true to their religious beliefs and should be used only for things they would approve. What would they think of their tag-the-dollar theory if they realized I have loosed some of my “atheist dollars” into society and they have some in their wallets.
Hi! I would like to welcome you to my blog... I am unsure of who you are but, I appreciate your comments. I apologize for the sloppiness of this post, I haven't had much time. Anyways, I will address your argument point by point, i don't mean to be rude, I am just not a good writer otherwise =)
Delete"The real question here is not whether the First Amendment precludes government from enacting and enforcing the generally applicable laws regarding availability of health insurance (it does not), but rather whether government should, as a matter of grace, exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences. "
I am confused by this and suggest you read my
http://prayingmentis.blogspot.com/2012/02/obamacare-vs-constitution-episode-i.html
But I will say, that not asking whether or not a law is constitutional before enacting it is like throwing an egg at a building and only asking afterwards if it is legal... I would like hope that this is not how you test right and wrong in your own life.
"but rather whether government should, as a matter of grace, exempt some employers in order to avoid forcing them to act contrary to their consciences."
No, that is not the question at all. You are getting ahead of yourself. It is always necessary to know of the law constitutional in the first place. I would say its a deep violation of the constitution... And would like to ask you to prove otherwise. (I posted this in my blog that I linked above):
1.)Violation of the Due Process Clause:
"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
2.)Violation of the Ninth amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Violation: The right of the people to refuse purchase of a product.
3.) Violation of the Tenth Ammendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Violation: The power to force people to pay for contraceptives is not expressively included in the constitution. Thus— guess what?! That's right, this subject matter is, not one to be decided by the pen of a bureaucrat, but is instead one that is up to a vote by you and me! Yay democracy!
In a case where the federal government tried to impose penalties for not purchasing products, The supreme court reported it as a violation of the tenth amendment:
“Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (e.g. by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see (South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.”
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Forced_participation_or_commandeering
"The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government"
Do you know how much those fees are? Furthermore see the tenth amendment.
I am confused of how you could try to argue that in order to make a law, you do not need to first determine the constitutionality of said law, it kind of makes me want to cry. Furthermore, if this is a right, that has to be determined to be needed by the people, then why have we not voted on it as a people? +.+
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstand my comment. I heartily agree that the government should not pass a law that it does not believe to be constitutional. Moreover, it is important to first assess whether the health care law violates the First Amendment rights of religious employers. My point is that under the law of the First Amendment (summarized in my comment), the law plainly does not violate the First Amendment. That is why I said that, beyond the constitutional issue, the real question now is whether there is any good reason to fashion an exemption for religious employers. For the reasons related in my comment, I think there is no need for such an exemption, and those clamoring for one really just want to extend the influence of their own religious beliefs to affect the freedom and behavior of others.
ReplyDeleteI see you make arguments on other constitutional grounds--arguments that don't, in my opinion, hold water. It is telling that the Catholic bishops' lawyers don't bother making those arguments in their lengthy legal arguments on the subject.
I have seen how much the "assessments" are. They appear to be substantially less than an employer would pay for an employee's health insurance plan. For that reason, some employers are considering that as an option for economic, rather than religious, reasons. Perhaps the government has set them too low.
I would disagree about your comment on the First amendment. The first amendment only becomes as much of a concern as it does, on issues that are not necessities. You are making the assumption that Contraception is not a right, like housing or food, but instead a privilege that must be provided by the federal dollar. I think you would have a hard time convincing the founding fathers of your case.
ReplyDeleteWith that having been said:
http://healthcarelawsuits.org/cases.php
I still don't really get how you can justify forcing the nation to purchase a product. If you can explain to me how that is not a blatant violation of 9th and 10th ammendment, you will have me won over and I will try to get as many people possible to flock to your cause in celebration.
Laws, by their nature, have "force," i.e., the force of law, otherwise they may as well be dubbed "suggestions." Law enacted by the federal government must, of course, be authorized by the Constitution in one or more of the enumerated powers it grants government.
ReplyDeleteThe 9th Amendment merely expresses the obvious and uncontroversial idea that the Constitution specifies some but not all rights and, by doing specifying some, does not mean to deny the people other rights they retain. It remains, of course, to ascertain and identify any right that you contend the health law infringes. You can't simply point to the 9th Amendment and call it a day.
The 10th Amendment, similarly, expresses the obvious and uncontroversial idea that the Constitution grants the federal government certain powers and all others are reserved by the states and/or the people. If the health law is found to be within one or more of the government's enumerated powers, that's the ball game. Once that is established, the 10th Amendment does not then somehow operate to deny or limit the scope of a power enumerated in the Constitution.
Doug, I read over what you said... And in my view point you are viewing the constitution with a very odd bias. In your view point I am viewing the constitution poorly. With that having been said, I see no further point in pretending that if we continue our discussion, that somehow we can change the current laws of society or the others opinion..
ReplyDeleteAs my goal is not to alter people's opinions, but rather enlighten them; I invite you to make your closing arguments and I will do the same.
Laws, by their nature, have "force," i.e., the force of law, otherwise they may as well be dubbed "suggestions."
Ok. Yes, I agree that a law is a law and thus naturally has the power of being a law.
Law enacted by the federal government must, of course, be authorized by the Constitution in one or more of the enumerated powers it grants government.
Ok... but that does not imply whether or not the law is moral.
It remains, of course, to ascertain and identify any right that you contend the health law infringes. You can't simply point to the 9th Amendment and call it a day.
Yes, which is why I pointed to basically all the ammendments. Please refer to the link I sent you of open pending cases against the legality of the healthcare mandate.
The 9th Amendment merely expresses the obvious and uncontroversial idea that the Constitution specifies some but not all rights and, by doing specifying some, does not mean to deny the people other rights they retain.
I think it would be helpful if you defined rights... as you keep using this word, but I still think you are confused of it's meaning.
The 10th Amendment, similarly, expresses the obvious and uncontroversial idea that the Constitution grants the federal government certain powers and all others are reserved by the states and/or the people.
Yes it is very obvious and very uncontroversial... As what you just said are the exact words in the constitution. o.o Hitler managed to win over an entire country... Didn't make what he did more right my friend. What I am moving towards is to make people aware of society and where it is moving. Furthermore, even if 2 powers find something to be legal does not mean the supreme court will. And furthermore that is not what the constitution says, it says, no matter what it is up to the people if it is not a right expressively endowed in the constitution. Just because the branches are doing things that they are not supposed to, mean that the constitution grants them that ability.
Once that is established, the 10th Amendment does not then somehow operate to deny or limit the scope of a power enumerated in the Constitution.
No, it does not. I agree. Once you establish what a right is by the constitution you can see how plainly the exuctive branch and congress (which are both controlled by the democratic party) are overriding the votes of republicans. If you disagree with this statement... then I am confused.
It has been a pleasure.
David Day