On The Main Blog

Creative Minority Reader

Garnett: Scrap the HHS Mandate

Notre Dame Law Professor Richard Garnett writes in USA Today:

James Madison, the "Father of our Constitution," believed that America's distinctive commitment to religious liberty "promised a lustre to our country." And, for more than two centuries, we have been trying — sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing badly — to prove Madison right.

In recent months, this effort has been playing out in the context of new rules, recently proposed by the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services, that would interpret the 2010 health care law to require all new insurance plans to cover contraceptives, sterilization and even some abortion-causing drugs. A wide range of groups and citizens from all over the political spectrum have filed comments with the department, urging changes to these proposed regulations. A final decision is expected soon.
Continue reading>>>

Your Ad Here

3 comments:

Mary De Voe said...

"Or prohibit the free exercise thereof" The First Amendment specifically enjoins and prohibits any enforced violation of a person's conscience as unconstitutional.
These decisions are unconstitutional because they are all based on the fallacious assumption that the Declaration of Independence was replaced by our Constitution.
Where in our Constitution is the truth that all men are created equal reversed, eradicated or annulled? Where in our Constitution are the unalienable rights of all men, who are created equal, and endowed by our Creator, renounced or not ratified?
When Hillary Clinton wrote a healthcare bill, the bill criminalized any doctor who treated a person not in his assigned area. The penalty for fulfilling one’s vocation in treating a sick person, an invented crime, would be two years in Federal Prison.
Does anybody really believe that Obamacare has no penalties for remaining faithful to one’s conscience?

“It is true that the administration's proposed mandate includes an exemption for some religious employers, but it is so stingy as to be nearly meaningless. It does nothing for individuals or insurers, and it applies only to employers whose purpose is "the inculcation of religious values" and that hire and serve primarily those of the same religious faith."
Only one individual, to bring a civil rights lawsuit against the administration’s interpretation of the free exercise of conscience, will bring Obamacare to ashes. The catch 22, here, is when Obamacare corners those individuals who claim religious exemption, it can practically execute those persons claiming the religious exemption, which it is calculated to do. Separation of church and state, no religion in the public square or business or marketplace and drive them underground, out of business or into bankruptcy in our fair land.

Mary De Voe said...

Too many posters talk of contraception and sterilization as though being born of LUST is something to be envied, as though being imprisoned and addicted to LUST is something that somebody wants. Government is constituted by innocent people who want their children's innocence preserved, for only innocence can bring forth Justice.

Mary De Voe said...

P.S. In every other circumstance, having one's parentage impugned for LUST can and ought to land a person in court. Celebrating bastardy is hardly worth celebrating.


Popular Posts