Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Attack on Catholic Church is an Attack on the Constitution

President Obama has decreed that the Catholic Church must provide birth control and abortifacients in the health care plans it offers to its employees

Here’s a statement from government suckerfish Planned Parenthood:
“This is good health policy and good economic policy,” said Dawn Laguens, vice president at Planned Parenthood. “It increases access to affordable birth control, but it is up to an individual employee to choose it or not. That’s very much the American way.” (El Lay Times – Contraceptive Mandate)
No.  It's not the American Way, as if a statist trained monkey raised and sustained on free taxpayer money would even begin to understand the concept. This is a terrible idea because it is a federal government telling private citizens what to do when it has no authority to do so.  A true free choice is one you make on your own and then pay for on your own without picking someone else’s pocket. That’s the American Way. The constitution was written to prevent such abuse.

Kevin Drum wrote that if you take government money you march to the government’s tune. It's a valid argument.  However, the violator here is not the Catholic Church; it is the US Government that is charged by We The People to be the guardian of our God-given rights. By ensnarling every last person in its tangled web, it has created a hopeless situation for anyone wanting to order their own lives and business free from the unblinking government gaze.

What gives the federal government the right to issue such dicta to churches? What gives it the right to command any organization or business in this way? What part of the constitution sanctions this?

The federal government is in bald-faced violation of the first amendment

You see, our rights are innumerable and bounded only by those outer limits where they interfere with the rights of others. Government’s rights are enumerated and limited; restricted by what that mandate from the people to their elected government, the US Constitution, says. This is what we need to be telling our politicians, our kids, and our family, friends, neighbors and coworkers who may have forgotten it. We also need to say it loud and proud when the smartass statist gargoyles in the press shove microphones in our faces at tea party rallies.

The US Constitution protects our God-given rights to life, liberty and property and it limits the actions the federal government may take against them. The very idea of mandating such everyday minutiae of our personal lives makes a mockery of our constitutional form of government.

Even Liberty's Defenders get it Wrong...

Oxymoronic ObamaCatholic Doug Kmiec proposes a speech Obama should give that admits the government was wrong. This phrase stuck out at me:
While the constitution doesn't mandate religious exemptions from general laws, I believe we should accommodate as many beliefs as possible and to the greatest extent possible without jeopardizing the purpose of the law. (Tim Reidy)
Firstly, we have no more general laws, as great jurists of England and the United states from centuries past would understand them. Our government no longer operates under the constitutional Rule of Law.  Rather, it now barrages us with stern commands and dictatorial edicts.

Religious Exemptions are a Warning Sign

Were our government’s lawmaking still in conformance with the constitution, there would be no requirement for “religious exemptions,” since the First Amendment bars government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The fact that our discussions of law and regulations are now so shot through with talk of exemptions is an indictment against our government and the craven batwinged legislators and bureaucrats who haunt its once-hallowed halls.

Federalist 84 eloquently expresses this concern, as Publius argues against a Bill of Rights. He saw the danger to all our rights that would be caused by enumerating certain of them. Hamilton proved to be quite prescient:
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. (Federalist 84)
Back when the constitution still mattered, honorable lawmakers would observe that this or that proposed legislation protrudes into the private lives of citizens, and thereby abandon the project.   Our post-constitutional government suffers no such scruples.  And the ignorant subjects stand up on their hind legs and applaud.

44 comments:

wonderchriss said...

The Obama Administration wants to pit ALL Americans against each other and create chaos, hence socialism begins.

Mark Adams said...

So many flagrant violations of the Constitution, that it has become an addiction to this command-n-clown. Obamacare, warpowers, czar, recess appointments and then we have this. All this without batting an eye.

Always On Watch said...

Religious exemptions -- a slippery slope.

For example, devout Muslims have religious objections to auto insurance. Should that mean that Muslim cab drivers not be required to carry insurance?

Get into a serious accident with someone who doesn't carry insurance, and see what happens.

Anonymous said...

We've been subjected INCREMENTAL TYRANNY ever since Abe Lincoln set aside the Constitution by waging the War of Northern Aggression against the will of just about everybody but his falsely and foolishly-sainted self.

After that the vision of Jefferson & CO started to crumble. By the time TR came along, we were well on our way toward a renascence of authoritarianism in government.

Because we've all been kept preoccupied with a long series of "foreign entanglements" touted as "virtuous," and at the same time well-fed, decently housed, and able to buy most of the trinkets and tokens we've fancied, we just haven't NOTICED that little by little our liberties have been whittled away to the point where we now face genuine despotism.

What good does it to be good at sniffing out the "underlying causes" and "true motives" behind most phenomena? I don't need charts, graphs and statistics to tell me what's going on. I've known deep in my bones that we've been on the downward path since the early Sick-sties.

Fat lot of good it does to be able to spot trends, analyze the significance of current events accurately or even having The Gift of Prophecy.

Like Cassandra, who knew it all, and tried to warn the ancients, NO ONE BELIEVES those who know and tell the TRUTH. In fact -- like Ron Paul, and poor Glenn Beck they are dismissed and waved off as "crackpots."

Jesus Christ, Himself, was CRUCIFIED because he spoke Truth to Power. Neither the Roman Brutes or the corrupt, authoritarian, Jewish Establishment of His time could continue to thrive in the light of Truth.

Most of history's bloodshed has come about because entrenched power blocs cannot tolerate even the mildest dose of Truth. Envy of those who are right and markedly superior rarely leads -- as it should -- to EMULATION. Instead it leads to attempts at ANNIHILATION.

History: The story of "confused alarums of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night."

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

AOW:

It is a slippery slope, but worse, as Hamilton argues, it puts in the mind of the government and the citizens that rights and liberty flow from government. A horrible usurpation of our natural rights.

This stems from government abandoning the Anglo-Saxon way of writing general laws (everyone must be financially liable for the damage they cause), and now issuing direct commands (you must own car insurance).

I don't know the specifics, but I am sure Islam has some alternative to insurance, as it does for some banking matters. If it serves the same purpose as insurance and doesn't violate the constitution, who's business is it? Certainly not the government's.

This is the problem with government commands and minutely-crafted dicta. It removes discretion in one's personal sphere, shrinking it, as the government's purview grows.

For a much better explanation, see Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, chapters 11 & 12. You will weep at how far we have fallen.

Ducky's here said...

A true free choice is one you make on your own and then pay for on your own without picking someone else’s pocket.

----------

Bore me later, Fascist mercenary (since you decided to go negative to start your column).

A woman takes a job in the health industry and she can only find work at a Catholic hospital which limits her insurance choices.

Freedom? Or a conflict of interest. You know, those pesky conflicts that show up in reality all the time and not in the little Libertarian or evangelical sandbox.

When you have a proposal that effectively resolves conflicts let us know. Till then your Libertarian rants are idiot wind.

Didn't want to be nasty but you start the "statist" silliness and it sets the tone.

beamish said...

Bore me later, Fascist mercenary

Fascist? But Ducky, Silverfiddle doesn't have a left-wing bone in his body. How can he be Fascist?

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: A woman takes a job in the health industry and she can only find work at a Catholic hospital which limits her insurance choices.

Wrong argument, Quackster. Try again.

The federal government, by inserting itself has dictated choice.

Decouple health insurance (or better yet, let each company decide), get the government out of it, and you will have a free market of health insurance plans. Almost all of them would offer all these "womens health" stuff because the vast majority want them.

This is a government-created fiasco. It surprises me not at all that you went for the insults and completely skipped over the constitutional argument.

Bunkerville said...

Obama may have out played his hand. Big time. My hunch was that Obama thought this would stir up the GOP social issues.That was what stephanopoulos had in mind when he started this Contraceptive thing at the debate. Why out of no where was this topic brought up?

Ducky's here said...

The federal government, by inserting itself has dictated choice.

-------

Which, according to Libertarians, is the greatest good.

Seems that the state is doing God's work.

Anonymous said...

"God creates life"
"God sanctifies life"
"Life is precious" Oh, yes, many of us believe that, don't we. Easy, beautiful, how Godly we like to think of ourselves.

oops;
"baby conceived here...let's kill it, we'd hate to inconvenience the mother." After all, happiness is the main goal.
Or wait...was it holiness, following his Word?
Oh, yes, that was it.
oops

Mark Adams said...

"A woman takes a job in the health industry and she can only find work at a Catholic hospital which limits her insurance choices."

OK then, the liberal mindset takes it to extreme and wants the government to mandate that 69M Catholics should buck up and dis their beliefs so that 1 person can find a job in the healthcare industry that will generate 3.2 million new wage and salary jobs between 2008 and 2018, (according to the Bureau Labor Statistics) So in all likelihood, this one person chances of ONLY finding a job at a catholic hospital is slim to none…

Finntann said...

"Fascist mercenary", my, my isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. (Oops... that isn't a racial ephithet now is it?)

You choose to dip your wick in the wax, sometimes you get a candle. Free will necessarily implies that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. The government is no more responsible for covering your birth control than covering your gambling losses.

This transferrence of personal liability to society at large is absurd.

Auto insurance is a straw man, auto insurance laws are financial responsibilty laws, they are in place to ensure that the damages you cause to other people are covered.

Contraception/abortifacients do not protect society at large from the damage caused by your sexual activity, other than in the twisted way the statists have decided if you pop out six babies you can't pay for, the rest of us are stuck with the bill.

A quick trip to the walmart website illustrates that you can get a condom for 44 cents (5.36 a 12 pack). So... do you want government to buy the dinner and the movie too?

"A woman takes a job in the health industry and she can only find work at a Catholic hospital which limits her insurance choices."

By your twisted reasoning, if the woman was Catholic and she could only find work at Planned Parenthood, they would have to stop offering abortions to accomodate her, no?

I wonder what if any influence this issue had to do with Santorum's three state sweep. I hardly expected him to win Colorado.

In the mind of a liberal:

Dinner: $52
Movie: $18
Condom: $0.44

Getting the Catholic Church to pay for your birth control: PRICELESS


Cheers!

Ducky's here said...

Many Catholic institutions already cover birth control in their policies, Finntann.

The right may get some traction trying to make this a religious issue.

Anyway, it would have played out without the edict.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Poor wording on my part. I should have said government dictating "non-choice," because that's what it is.

This is what happens when government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong. I hope it gets broken this time.

Ducky's here said...

Well my guess is that Obummer, always the politician never the leader, figured he needs to get the base revved up after playing the conservative for three years.

Nothing gets them going like reproductive issues and after the stupidity of trying to defund Planned Parenthood again he saw an opening. Gives L'il Ricky Retardo some extra zing to keep the primaries a sideshow.

We don't elect leaders any longer.

Jersey McJones said...

This is all so frustratingly stupid. 98% of Catholics use birth control at one point or another. 98-friggin'-%.

It's such a phony argument. And then Silver somehow equates this with socialism, while the effected Catholic institutions all get taxpayer money directly or indirectly.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

Socialism? Open your eyes. I never said anything about socialism. I realize the constitutional argument is over your head, Jersey, but at least try to stick to the facts...

Finntann said...

Peaking in keyholes or reading Huffpo?

Found many articles that quoted that statistic yet failed to provide a citation.

A little digging reveals it came from Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council in a blog post. WOW! There's an unbiased source for you!

She references the Guttmacher Institute: "According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception."

"The more relevant Guttmacher statistic would be use of "highly effective" methods of contraception covered by the new rule, such as the pill, IUDs and sterilization, among sexually active women who don’t want to become pregnant — 68 percent for Catholic women and 69 percent for all women."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/06/cecilia-munoz/white-house-official-says-98-catholic-women-have-u/

Well I found the Guttmacher study.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

Here is some more information:

"the majority of women of reproductive age (15–44) have a religious affiliation, attend religious services at least once a month and indicate that religion is very important in their daily lives."

"Data were gathered using in-person interviews with 7,356 women aged 15–44 between June 2006
and December 2008."

And furthermore:

CONTRACEPTIVE USE WAS MEASURED ONLY AMONG WOMEN WHO HAD SEX IN THE THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY!!!

WHICH IS IN GUTTMACHER'S OWN F'ING REPORT!!!

Now, digging further it seems that Guttmacher didn't even conduct a survey... they used data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) 2006-2008.

Now, the data they used is:

Current contraceptive use among women at risk of unintended pregnancy,* by religious affiliation, 2006–2008 NSFG

WAIT... IS THAT AN ASTERISK?

*Refers to sexually active women who are not pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant.

Imagine that, they're not polling nuns and the religiously devout.

In fact, the Guttmacher study doesn't even say that 98% of Catholic women have used a contraceptive... what the study says is that:

"Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same,98%, among sexually experienced Catholic women."

Wonder why they added in that little caveat? "Sexually experienced"... could it be that Catholics who abstain are not included in the study?

BUT WAIT!

It seems that the NFSG data doesn't even have a 98% figure... that number is a composite, derived from the data by Guttmacher and doesn't even address the issue at hand under the Obama regulation.

What the NFSG study said was that 68% of (sexually experienced) Catholic women (that were sexually active in the last three months) used "Highly effective methods".

This data is further broken down as:

Sterilization: 32%
Pill or other hormonal: 31%
IUD: 5%

What is ignored is that for those same Catholic women 15% use condoms, 2% use natural family planning, 4% use 'other', and 11% use no method.

Jersey, this is so frustratingly stupid and such a phony argument. Why don't you check your friggin facts before opening your piehole and regurgitating administration talking points.

Cheers!

Most Rev. Gregori said...

The federal government has been in violation of the US Constitution since 1913. I firmly believe that it is high time for mass civil disobedience.

Remember, no matter how many unconstitutional laws the government passes, if enough people refuse to obey them, the government cannot arrest us all.

After all, our government is BY the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE and OF the PEOPLE.

Anonymous said...

I'm absolutely ASTOUNDED to learn that Jersey has, apparently, managed to get into bed with every Catholic couple on the face of the earth and observe their sexual practices firsthand without ever being noticed.

ASTONISHING!

Jersey's incredible feat beats the fabled exploits of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy combined by miles.

I'm AWESTRUCK.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Finntann, your command of data is awe-inspiring, but sometimes the fusillade of facts and figures looks as though you're trying to kill a housefly with a howitzer.

Whatever happened to the concept of "proportional response?" ;-)

Be careful lest you generate unwarranted sympathy for those you so powerfully refute.

~ FreeThinke

Liberalmann said...

THIS IS NOTHING BUT MORE POLITICAL THEATER BY THE RIGHT.

With War On Contraception, GOP Lawmakers Seek To Deny Coverage To Others That They Enjoy

By Alex Seitz-Wald posted from ThinkProgress Health on Feb 8, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Republican congressional leaders are entering the fray over the Obama administration’s weeks-old decision to require employer-provided health insurance to cover contraception, including for some religious organizations that don’t employ a majority of people of that faith. The decision has been a hot topic on the campaign trail in recent days, but today, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took the House floor to slam it, calling it an “unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country” and vowed to repeal the regulation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had a similarly sharp indictment yesterday.

Leticia said...

When has Obama ever adhered to the Constitution? Ummm...let's see now, oh right, NEVER!

What he is doing is absolutely stomping on the constitution, trampling on the rights of the Catholic church and all pro-life conservatives that believe that life occurs at conception.

He has continually and blatantly ignored the voice of the people, over again and again. He doesn't give a rats-rear-end that many Christians and conservatives value all life, even his, unfortunately. He won't hesitate to give the order to butcher and murder the most innocent of human beings.

It will not only be the Catholics fighting on the front lines but all pro-life supporters are going to fight this to the bitter end.

Teresa said...

I am passing an award your way -- http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2012/02/and-liebster-award-goes-to.html

So much for respecting diversity of beliefs. Progressives have a This is my way or the highway attitude. They don't give a rats A$$ about the Constitution or religion either. Except to undermine them every step of the way.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver,

Try to get this: Only people have rights. Not institutions. Institutions have rules. People have rights.

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

Freethinker, do you deny the polls that indicate that the overwhelming majority of Catholic women use birth control.

Or study family size. It's a pretty good indicator.

Ducky's here said...

THIS IS NOTHING BUT MORE POLITICAL THEATER BY THE RIGHT.

--------

Well, if you want to get all inside baseball about it, maybe an anti-Romney move.

Since this decree is identical to the Massachusetts statute it gives Newton and L'il Ricky Retardo more ammunition and keeps the sideshow going.

Ducky's here said...

@wonderchriss - The Obama Administration wants to pit ALL Americans against each other and create chaos, hence socialism begins.

-------
Tie a can on it you Trotskyite.

Teresa said...

@Ducky Just because most women are defiant and ignore Church teachings doesn't give the Obama administration the right to trample on our religious liberty rights and the constitution.

This is political chicanery by the Right. I guess you are a typical liberal who gives no credence to the Constitution and believes it should be shredded to pieces. That is the only way you could possibly think that this is political theater by the Right.

Finntann said...

Liberalmann, no one has declared war on contraception, you want to put a helmet on your little soldier go right ahead.

The issue is whether or not government can mandate that organizations provide it in violation of their conscience or religious belief.

In fact if government tried to ban it, I'd oppose that too!

Fact is, what you do and who you do it with is none of my business, I just don't want it paid for on my behalf as a gesture of government largesse.

You can have sex, safe or not, to your little heart's content... just don't expect me to pay for your children or your birth control if you don't want any.

If you don't like what an employer offers as part of their benefit or compensation package, you are entitled to decline their offer. Not all companies offer to match 401K contribution either, are your going to mandate that?

These are the things that different employers offer, and these are the things that guide us in our decision making process as to whom we wish to work for. It is how companies compete with each other in the marketplace of employees.

Why do you think companies started offering benefits in the first place?

Ducky... if the polls show an overwhelming majority of us cheat on our taxes...does that make it all right too?

Your logic is ridiculous.

The percentage of Catholics that disregard church teachings is irrelevant to those that follow it.

In the south prior to the civil rights movement, one might argue that the majority of southerners discriminated against negroes... does that make it right?

All you argue for is for tyranny of the majority, something our government was originally designed to prevent, which liberals have been trying to circumvent at least since the 1930's.

Cheers!

Silverfiddle said...

...absolutely ASTOUNDED to learn that Jersey has, apparently, managed to get into bed with every Catholic couple on the face of the earth and observe their sexual practices firsthand without ever being noticed.

Damn that's a scary thought... No sex at casa Silverfiddle tonight, by mutual consent.

@ Jersey: Try to get this: Only people have rights

Yes, and people buy health insurance. The bulb is still too dim to grasp the constitutional argument...

98ZJUSMC said...

Be careful lest you generate unwarranted sympathy for those you so powerfully refute.


Never.

Happen.

98ZJUSMC said...

Ducky's here said...
The federal government, by inserting itself has dictated choice.

-------

Which, according to Libertarians, is the greatest good.


Not if it goes against your religious beliefs. Try harder next time.

Jersey McJones said...
Silver,

Try to get this: Only people have rights. Not institutions. Institutions have rules. People have rights.


..and is that institution not a collection of people? Do they not have the right to worship and believe as they see fit? I suppose they lose that status and must bend to the will of government when they become an institution. The Roman Catholic Church is not the just the Vatican. It's not just the various Pastors and Bishops. It is the Parishoners, first and foremost.

By mandating a practice in direct contradiction of Church policy, you are inhibiting the Parishoners right of free worship.

Funny how the libby screams of "separation of Church and State" are so loud on this.

(NOTE to HuffPo koSkIdS: It's not in the Constitution. But now, that wouldn't matter anyway.)

...oh no, they're not are they.

Who's being a fascist?

Just wondering.

beamish said...

The bulb is still too dim to grasp the constitutional argument...

Obama supporters are like a string of discount Christmas lights.

Half don't work, the other half aren't very bright.

Anonymous said...

It would never happen with you, JUSMC, but there are many less certain in their opinions and less equipped with knowledge who might be swayed in that direction by "overkill."

I was, however, making an attempt to be humorous. How easily jocularity escapes people when the subject is deadly serious!

~ FT

Anonymous said...

FYI: The Establishment Clause was written to make it plain that the government of our new nation would have not right or duty to support the existence of a State Church. That's ALL it means.

The enemies of Christianity and proponents of Atheism and the establishment of Moral and Ethical Chaos conveniently choose to forget the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" part of the much-disputed statement.

~ FreeThinke

Teresa said...

Beamish is one of the brightest bulbs in the U.S.

How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb? One to ask how? One to hold the chair. One to stand on the chair. One is in dreamland wishing a light bulb fairy would spread the light bulbs. And one to actually screw in the light bulb.

Teresa said...

Bumhead was obviously a screwed up light bulb who is unable to light up. Stay in the darkness Bumhead.

BB-Idaho said...

Wonder why the hierarchy even worries about contraceptives ...

Silverfiddle said...

I apologize not for the behavior of others, but because I am not tech savvy enough to keep out the cockroaches and termites.

I would ask my blogger buddies, when they stumble upon malodorous brain droppings, to simply treat them as they would doggy doo on the sidewalk. Step around it and move on.

beamish said...

Agreed, Silverfiddle but..

would ask my blogger buddies, when they stumble upon malodorous brain droppings, to simply treat them as they would doggy doo on the sidewalk. Step around it and move on.

I hope it doesn't start looking like Paris around here.

Cornholio said...

Me, too beamish. I hate French things.

dmarks said...

Teresa asked: "How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

It takes a 15 member environmental regulatory to ban the light bulb. Then no one will need to change it.