The Latest Obamacare Overreach--Ron Paul's Weekly Update for Feb 13th 2012

Quote of the month: "The fact that we are here to today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign the US Government cannot pay it's own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies." ~Senator Barack H. Obama March 2006

The Latest Obamacare Overreach

Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.
Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.

Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?

In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.

So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.

But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.

Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.

The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.

I'm posting Ron Paul's position on the topics of the day so that people can get to know him.

To hear Ron Paul reading this message call 1-888-322-1414 updated every Sunday night.
Click here to view more Texas Straight Talk articles

"In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right."

Thanks for helping us "get to know" Ron Paul.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:

Quote of the month: "The fact that we are here to today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign the US Government cannot pay it's own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies." ~Senator Barack H. Obama March 2006

The Latest Obamacare Overreach

Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the "morning after" pill.
Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.

Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?

In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.

So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.

But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.

Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.

The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.

I'm posting Ron Paul's position on the topics of the day so that people can get to know him.

To hear Ron Paul reading this message call 1-888-322-1414 updated every Sunday night.
Click here to view more Texas Straight Talk articles

---

Yes, thank you for conveying Rep. Ron Paul's stance on the birth control mandate. Although I like his platform on civil liberties and ending foreign wars, this piece is an example of why I could never support him for president. Let's look at this point by point:

1) "Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars."

This is absolutely true, but that is the cost of living in a society with diverse priorities and viewpoints. I, for one, have a moral objection to the fact that we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Roughly half of my income taxes go toward defense spending, and I object to that. I am not the only one. But I also accept that I only get one vote, and sometimes I am going to be over-ruled. What religious employers will have to pay for their employees to get birth control is a tiny fraction of the money spent on the military, so I really don't feel bad for those who feel like their religious beliefs are being violated by this mandate. Refund me all the money I've lost to the cause of pointless wars, and then maybe we can talk.


2) "Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is "denying access" to healthcare. If employers don't provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?"

No, we don't. That's because progressives and labor unions fought long and hard to force employers to pay a livable wage to all of their employees. If an employer didn't pay their employees at least minimum wage (which badly needs updating!), they would be subject to fines and civil litigation. The cost of basic healthcare is also supposed to be included in a "livable wage," but over the years healthcare has become too expensive for many workers, and access to birth control is a vital component of one's health. The birth control mandate addresses this deficiency.


3) "In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion."

This is so false and inflammatory that it barely dignifies a response, but a response is needed nonetheless. First of all, with greater access to birth control comes a reduction in the number of abortions, so if there were an "abortion industry" special interest, it would be fighting against greater access to birth control, not supporting it. If everyone who didn't want children actually used birth control properly, the "abortion industry" would lose countless paying customers. As such, those who truly object to abortions should applaud an administration that champions this mandate.

Second, I cannot think of a single public figure or personal friend who actually hates traditional religious values; what they object to is the tendency of the more zealous religious conservatives to try to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. When I say, "You can't tell me what to do with my body," I am not saying, "I hate your values," I am saying, "You can't tell me what to do with my body." If you don't like that, tough. Because you can't tell me what to do with my body. It's in the Constitution. Religious liberals really, truly, absolutely do not care what you do with your religious values, as long as you can recognize where your values' influence should end and where ours should begin. As such, I draw a bright red line around the healthcare choices that affect me, not you. If your morals are offended, I am truly sorry, but on balance I think it would be better for the government to offend your morals than for the government to give employers the ability to come between women and their doctors when it comes to their healthcare decisions, because you can get over being offended but an unwanted child cannot "get over" being born.


4) "Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right."

Again, no political figure "hates" traditional values, they just don't think such values should be imposed on those who don't share them. This includes the employees of religiously owned institutions. Why doesn't Rep. Paul care about the religious beliefs of those who are most affected by these policies, including the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control? Sometimes a policy question comes up, and there is no way to make everyone happy. Exempting churches but not their secular affiliates is an appropriate way to balance all the conflicting values and priorities - not a way to express hatred of traditional values. If Obama truly hated traditional values, he could have tried to include churches in the mandate, but he didn't. He tried to find the "line of best fit," but religious conservatives don't want a compromise, they want victory.

And by the by, although no one wants to promote single-parent households (another canard promoted by the Right), single parents are noble - in countless cases, they are raising a child by themselves with little to no support while the other person who created the child has abandoned his or her responsibilities. Also, responsible birth control should be encouraged as soon as someone becomes sexually active, and since we cannot control every moment of a hormone-addled teenager's life, it is far better to teach them responsible sexual expression than it is to pretend that we can control their behavior. Just ask Sarah Palin about her experience in this arena. And while abortion may or may not be an absolute moral right, it is an absolute, Constitutionally-guaranteed legal right, as interpreted by the Constitutionally-empowered Supreme Court for several decades now.


5) "But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith."

They can also choose to obey the law. I'm sure it would be nice to live in a world where only one set of values exists, but we don't live in that world. If they would rather stop healing the sick or teaching our youth than to live in a morally ambiguous world, that is their choice, but they can only retreat from our increasingly interdependent world for so long before they will eventually have to confront the fact that not everyone in this world is going to conform to their ideas about how life "should be." And given that 98% of Catholic women have used birth control, I'm not sure how this mandate is their first existential challenge.


6) "The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes."

Again, it would be nice if we lived in a world where it was even possible for a government never to have to take sides in a debate between its heterogeneous populations, but we do not live in that world. Again, I point to the fact that my conscience and my spiritual/religious beliefs are being violated every time the federal government allocates obscene amounts of money to the military.

Finally, you may not like the fact that the benefits of widely available birth control are a part of this debate (benefits that include a reduction in the overall number of abortions, so why is this even an problem for the religious Right?), but that doesn't mean that you can unilaterally declare that this is not the issue or shouldn't be a part of the discussion. You have your reasons for your position on the matter, and we have our reasons for our side of it. Telling me that my reasons are invalid won't get you any further in this debate than my telling you that your reasons are invalid will get me.

Sincerely,
Nathan