published Friday, March 23rd, 2012

On second anniversary of ObamaCare, law endangers charities and jobs

Today is the second anniversary of the signing into law of ObamaCare. But that's no cause for celebration.

Of recent concern is the controversy over the ObamaCare rule that religiously affiliated schools, hospitals and charities must offer employees health insurance that furnishes birth control. Lost in that debate is the threat that the mandate poses to the very existence of many of those valuable organizations.

Democrats in Washington are seeking to frame the issue as one of religious groups -- particularly Catholic ones -- trying to deny women access to contraception.

But that is dishonest.

Religiously affiliated organizations that object to the birth control mandate are not preventing employees from purchasing contraception. They are, rather, upholding their right under the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty not to be forced to furnish contraception in violation of their conscience and their long-taught and deeply held beliefs.

Requiring them to participate in an activity that makes them undermine their teachings directly conflicts with the principle of freedom of religion.

It also gravely endangers many of the religious charities that do important and effective work on behalf of the poor and downtrodden in our society, and it threatens the jobs of the many employees of those charities.

As we noted previously, officials in the Catholic Church have made it as plain as they can to the Obama administration that forcing Catholic-affiliated institutions to embrace policies they consider immoral will put them in an impossible bind.

Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago, notes that under ObamaCare's contraception mandate, those organizations will have four bad choices: End their connection to the church; pay massive yearly fines for refusing to pay for insurance that covers contraception; sell the organization to a secular group or local government; or simply shut down.

Severing the organizations' ties to the church would destroy the faith-based component that in many cases is exactly what makes the charities so effective. The huge fines for not providing coverage could bankrupt many organizations. And shutting down would deny the public the services that the worthwhile charities offer -- as well as the employment they provide to many people.

What good will it do employees of religiously affiliated charities to have contraception covered in their employer-based health plans if the charities close and they have no job?

Those are things the Obama administration should have thought about before imposing unconstitutional rules on religious charities, schools and hospitals.

There are no two ways about it: Those rules should be rescinded so that religious institutions can continue to provide their vital services without violating their beliefs or their conscience.

8
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Rickaroo said...

The laws of our country do not permit families of religious organizations that shun doctors, relying on prayer alone to heal, to deny medical attention to their children. Why is this? Because the overwhelming consensus of sane people in our society is that those people are nuts, plain and simple; and if parents try to force those insane beliefs on their unwitting children, thereby causing further harm or death, they are to be treated as criminals and convicted of child abuse.

Likewise almost everyone, not only in America but in the entire civilized world, agrees that birth control is a good thing and should be encouraged as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies and thereby decreasing the number of abortions. It is also good for treating a wide variety of other health issues in women. Anyone who thinks of birth control as a "sin" is nuts, plain and simple. The only few who think of it as something evil are this clown pope and his hierarchical circle of court jesters, all celibate, pious, sex-starved old men who take vows of chastity and shun marriage for the "higher" calling of touching little boys behind closed doors. Ninety eight percent of Catholic women admit to using birth control, and the other 2% are either lying or post-menopausal.

And we are supposed to bow down and mold policy just to placate these idiots who haven't an ounce of common sense on the matter? Phooey. It's insane that we are even having this discussion about respecting the religious views of these few out-of-touch old men who need to hang up their clown suits of yesteryear and step into the 21st century. They do not deserve respect. They deserve to be called out for the lunatics that they are.

March 23, 2012 at 3:28 a.m.
joneses said...

It is not about birth control. It is about the separation of church and state that you pathetic liberals are always pissing and moaning about. Obama has no right to tell the Catholic Church they have to supply a service that is against their religious beliefs. Birth control is still available and inexpensive. This foolish president's agenda is all about control and destroying little by little the freedom of religion.

March 23, 2012 at 4:33 a.m.
dfclapp said...

I would agree with you if the state and federal governments weren't left holding the bag after unmarried children got pregnant for lack of adequate sex education and birth control. Even if a Republican-controlled government refused to pay for dependant children or health care, it and consumers would pay a much much higher price for emergency room visits (in rising healthcare & insurance rates) and prisons as these ignored children grew up. Ethical precepts are one thing, hormones and human nature are another. A responsible government cannot afford to wear the same rose-colored glasses that denial of responsibility affords faith-based groups.

March 23, 2012 at 7:31 a.m.
conservative said...

Another well written common sense article by the Right side of the paper.

Obamination needed to invent an issue to stir up the Now Cows for his reelection chances. They were going to vote for him anyway. Now he has a greater number of moral Catholic voters against him.

He is not smart, but he is an arrogant, hard nosed radical leftist.

March 23, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.

You have it backwards joneses, the Catholic Church is the organization which has no right to compel or coerce any of its employees. They are the ones who want the right to control people, and not based on any objective need, but simple their interpretation of the Bible.

You are free to subject yourself to their will. They are not allowed to subject any of the rest of us to their commands. The Pope is not mentioned in the Constitution, and I decline to be made to obey his edicts. Or for any American. Or any other religious potentate.

That means any decision about health care provisions must be made with no regards for any faith's particular beliefs, but simply on objective science or common cause of the people.

I'd respect it if you wanted to put it to a popular vote what health care to cover, but no, you just want a bunch of old men who will never have children to make decisions for us.

I reject that. Stop trying to force your arrogance upon the rest of us.

March 23, 2012 at 11:18 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Con-man, the small number of "moral Catholic voters" that Obama will have against him will pale in comparison to the extremely large number of women voters he will gain on account of his support for their rights.

HWNB, you are exactly right. The Catholic Church and its adherents are free to believe and do whatever they friggin' want within the inner sanctum of their church and homes. But as soon as they enter the free market and take on the mantle of a business, they are subject to the same rules and regulations that every other business must abide by. This is not a matter of government infringing on the precious rights of a few deranged old men of diminished capacity but a matter of these nut-jobs over-reaching and trying to inflict their silly beliefs on the market place where they clearly do not belong.

March 23, 2012 at 1:35 p.m.
Plato said...

Churches are not required to provide health care for their employees with or without birth control products, however when a religious organization chooses to enter the public arena and operate businesses open to the public like clinics, hospitals and universities than they should be made to comply with the same laws that others must comply with. Notwithstanding this very simple principal, the president went one step further to appease the noise makers in the Catholic Church by telling them they did not have to pay the bill for the birth control coverage, but rather insurance companies needed to include it with their package plans - something insurance companies do not have to be beat of the head to do since the cost of birth control meds is a hell-of-a-lot cheaper than the cost of delivery and prenatal care.

Contrary to this silly editorial there is nothing in the Constitution that allows churches to operate businesses nor to skirt the law in so doing.

March 23, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.

How do you know it wasn't written in invisible ink on the back?

Have you ever checked?

March 23, 2012 at 9 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.