U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi’s office recently invited a Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, to testify in Congress regarding the need for the government to mandate insurance coverage for contraception. This is all part of an apparent attempt to shore up support for the government healthcare bill, otherwise known as ObamaCare.
Ms Fluke lamented the fact that contraception for a typical law student costs about $3,000, and without government intervention, her student health insurance would not cover it. Having to pay for it on her own would make it difficult for her to make ends meet, and likely put a crimp in her style.
Do the Democrats and others pushing for the United States government to mandate the coverage of contraception in health insurance policies really believe that they will garner support for government mandated health care by parading a student to whine about her $3,000 law school contraception bill? Really?
President Obama beat a strategic retreat from the adminstration’s initial position mandating that all employers — including religious ones — provide contraption coverage in their health policies. In a sort no-compromise compromise, President Obama then allowed that the religious employers would not be required to pay for contraception coverage, but that their insurance company providers would. As anyone can see, this is a distinction without a difference, and under this “comproimise” the religious employer is still paying for contraception, against their religious objections.
The U.S. Senate today presented the Blunt Amendment to provide a conscientious objector escape for just such religious employers. It was closely defeated along partisan lines.
In explaining the government’s position, Barbara Boxer (D, California), explained that permitting religious employers and others to exercise a conscience objection would be tantamount to giving them a “veto” over women’s health.
Among the many unbelievable aspects of this continually unfolding story, two stand out:
1) That the U.S. Senate would veto a provision allowing for religious objections to government mandates — regardless of the political mechanics involved in presenting the bill — displays a woeful ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and a signal disregard for both the rights of religious people in this country and any attempt to restrict government power.
2) That Barbara Boxer would classify a religious objection not to an individual’s use of contraception — as in a ban — but to the requirement that the religious organization pay for it as a “veto” of women’s health displays precisely how certain elements of this government views things: the ability to be free from the natural result of procreation and from the consequences of a runaway libido are tantamount to inherent rights, and rank above rights stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Additionally, the ordinary use of contraception and abortifacient drugs relate to “women’s health” only to the extent that pregnancy is deemed a disease. In such a view contraception — which we must acknowledge consists of tools to defeat new life — is thus the inoculation against a parasite that takes over the womb of females.
Thus the U.S. Government is deceiving its citizens by a blatant perversion of language, a gross violation of the Bill of Rights, and a callous disregard for the will of the governed.
Yet, still, the Government is not completely anti-religious: it simply wants us all to bow the Bacchanalian knee to Aphrodite.
