We’ve been hearing a lot from the Democrats about how the Republicans are
staging a “War on Women”. The Obama administration issued a rule that all
employers are now required to include abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives
and sterilization procedures in the insurance plans that they offer to employees.
Typically, this requirement would automatically exclude religious groups that
may object on moral grounds. The first amendment to the Constitution not only
protects our right to free speech and assembly, but also to the free exercise
of religion. Since the Catholic church certainly objects on religious grounds to
these insurance requirements, the Obama administration has declared them to
be “against women”. And of course, since the Republican party has sided with
the Catholic church, the Republicans must be “waging a war on women”.
I find it therefore fascinating that in Title 1, Subtitle F of "Obamacare" members
of religious groups that morally object to the concept of health "insurance" are
exempted from having to pay the annual penalty for not having health insurance.
The groups included here are Amish, Mennonites, and some Muslims. See,
Muslims object to insurance in general since it is considered a form of gambling
in their religion. So, Obama exempts one religious group from compliance based
on their religious convictions, yet forces another to violate theirs. Yet another
example of this administration choosing winners and losers.
So as of last May, 43 separate Catholic entities filed lawsuit in federal court
challenging the constitutionality of the contraception requirement.
The Obama administration changed some of the wording of the rule, but it didn’t
change the real effect.
One thing to consider here: the PPACA law is bad (in my opinion), but now
we are seeing what its supporters really want out of it when these rules and
regulations are being developed. Rules with the force of law. Rules that are
being made by scores of unelected people. People who are not accountable to
we the citizens. When do we get to challenge the Constitutionality of THIS?
(Note: This commentary is by Dr. Jill Vecchio.)