Healthcare Mandate an Attack on Freedom of Religion

Healthcare Mandate is NOT about women's healthcare, rather an attack on the First Amendment.

In all the hoopla over “contraception” these past few weeks, the real issue has purposely been masked.  The false premise that is being paraded around is that this is an assault on women’s healthcare and that women are being denied contraception.   Nothing could be further from the truth. The government already pays for contraception and abortion services through its subsidies to Planned Parenthood.  While the pundits may try to portray it as a women’s health issue, that is not honest assessment of what is happening.  How is preventing or terminating a pregnancy a healthcare issue?  To be sexually active and risk pregnancy is a choice. 

The real issue is about freedom of religion and the government completely ignoring and circumventing the Constitution.  This mandate absolutely goes against the First Amendment, which specifically prohibits the making of any law that impedes the free exercise of religion.

It is unprecedented for our government to tell religious institutions how they must operate.

The government wants to force religious institutions to cover services which go against the very foundation of their belief system.  Complying with this mandate is a direct violation of what the Church and other religious groups believe in. 

It makes one wonder - Is the government’s true objective to undermine our freedom of religion – the very thing our country was founded on?

If a religious institution refuses to comply, they face hefty fines, which will ultimately lead to these organizations having to close their doors.  All the good that Catholic charities do for people of all races and creeds will be wiped out.  Who loses?  The people who benefited from the generosity of these organizations, that’s who.

No matter how others want to spin the issue, it all comes back to being an assault on our First Amendment rights.

As a side note, let’s look at what insurance is supposed to be about.  People pay for insurance to protect themselves from unforeseen disasters so they are able to pay for damages and, in the case of sickness, so they can pay for healthcare.

Insurance is not about paying for our choices and activities.  With sex comes the responsibility of knowing a pregnancy could occur.  How is it that anyone should have to pay for this?  And worse yet, how can people sit idly by and think that this is just fine for our government to be controlling and making these decision?  How can this possibly go hand in hand with our belief in individual rights and freedom of choice?  It goes against our founding principles.

For a group of people who don’t like to be told what they can and cannot do, they certainly seem to be far too willing to allow their government to start dictating the rules.  Of course, the pendulum always swings the other way and when the tables turn I’m sure they will not be too happy that they fully complied in allowing the government to dictate issues in anyone’s life and to be part of the slippery slope into full government control of every aspect of our lives.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Pete Mock March 16, 2012 at 06:01 PM
There is no issue here with the free exercise of religion. The issue is whether an organization that provides services to the general public is bound by the law, and the answer is yes. Freedom of Religion is not absolute, and it resides within the boundries we sent a a free society. Society as a whole determines what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and where one person's freedom of religion stops and where the next person's begins. Religious institutions that operate businesses or provide services to all people, not just those within their religion, must do so within the framework of the law. They know that going in. If that framework is no longer acceptable then it is that institution that must consider whether it wants to continue to operate those business and services. It is not secular society that must adapt to the beliefs of the religious institution.
The Shill March 17, 2012 at 12:45 AM
If this is a freedom of religion issue then how can the governmet tell the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that they cannot practice polygamy or marry 14 year old girls. How can they tell the Rastafarians they cant smoke marijuana. What about ritual animal sacrifices, more common in South Florida among practitioners of Santeria and forms of Haitian Voodoo is that ok. There are all sorts of laws that religious institutions have to follow. All someone would have to say is my religion requires human sacrifice to appease the gods and you would not be able to charge them with murder. If this was not the Catholic church and some minority religion like Buddhism or Hinduism none of you would have a problem with it. Minority religions have problems with the government all the time and no one cares.
Kevin March 17, 2012 at 06:48 PM
It really is a bit silly to make a comparison between forcing religious people to support something they find morally wrong to preventing people from committing animal sacrifices and murder. Please!
The Shill March 17, 2012 at 08:45 PM
Kevin there is no differance the issue is religious freedom no matter what the religious belief is. If you want to hold the the government does not have the right under the Constitution to tell the Catholic Church they have to provide health insurance that covers contraception then all the other holds true. Your faith does not have special privlidges that other religions don't you can not have it both ways.
Jake Smith March 20, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Hey Shill and Peter Mock - what about all the waivers obama gave to corporations and unions that support him? Over 1,300 waivers in one year. Peter, you stated, "There is no issue here with the free exercise of religion. The issue is whether an organization that provides services to the general public is bound by the law, and the answer is yes." So how do you account for all the waivers? That sure is some sense of fairness. Please explain to me how it is fair that some are completely exempt while religious institutions, which are only looking to be exempt from things that go against their conscience, can't get an exemption. And who is going to pay for the healthcare of all those who are exempt? And why do these companies and unions want to be exempt? Because they know this bill is NO GOOD - that's why.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »