The Diabolical Details of the Obama HHS


As the old saying goes, the devil (diabolos) is usually in the details. This is a purely personal reaction to today's presidential announcement and in no way reflects official opinion at BreakPoint/Colson Center, where I work. But I noticed a few things in the announcement:

1. It was mentioned again (and again) that MOST women use contraceptives and that they prevent disease. The conclusion apparently should be that the government should make that free, and therefore anoint the principles implied as kosher and even mandatory. That is, anything that is healthy should be mandatory and free -- that is -- paid for by your tax money. Personal responsibility  goes out the window.

2. Since it is healthy, mandatory and free, and since so many use it, if a church has a doctrine or a belief against it, the church is (implied) not smart. But, says the government, we will accommodate. We will not make the church or non-profit pay for it and violate their conscience. We will, instead, force (yes, the law forces this on all insurers -- it was plainly stated) the insurance company of the organization to pay for it. In other words -- we are going to require at least a proxy of the organization to pay. Supposedly, that lets conscience and religious freedom off the hook.

Sometimes, the devil is really in the details of what isn't mentioned.

3. Not mentioned: Many organizations are self-insured. That means that they ARE the insurers. Well, even in a case like that, as we all should know, they have to have an insurance company under contract to handle the things the organization cannot. So I feel sure it is this contract company that will have to pay for the questionable operations, medicines, or procedures. In business, we call this a "pass-through" cost. Again, a proxy. But this time the veil of separation is much thinner. It gets much closer to the conscience being pushed to overlook this fact -- that we really are paying for these things, even if under another name.

4. Also not mentioned: abortifacients. The president did not mention this type of "contraceptive" drug, which is also mandated. He mentioned things like mammograms, etc. Who can argue with mammograms? This is the darkest side of the mandate. And the gnattiest detail. It all might boil down to this: Can you make a conscientious person, who abhors the idea of terminating a new life -- even one only a few hours old in the uterus -- pay to have that life snuffed out, even through a willing, or coerced, proxy?

Details . . . details.

Just added: The Becket Fund responds with a much more scholarly take on this - but covers many of the same points: 

Obama Administration Offers False “Compromise” on Abortion-Drug Mandate




Comments:

HHS Mandate & Compromise
This is a direct assault on our religious freedom and a direct departure from our historic Judaeo-Chrisitian world-view which spawns those freedoms. Chuck Colson, Thomas Jefferson and many others have articulated well how our rights stem from our being created in the image of God, who, Himself is free. We have rights because we have inherent dignity and worth because we bear God's image. Obama's paradigm of government is that government, not God, grants our rights, and so can limit them, modify them and take them away as they see fit. The compromise is no different. The government is still the one dictating the terms of the debate. They are still the ones granting the options between which we can choose, just like a parent with a child. The government is assuming prerogatives it does not have and was never meant to have. This is no longer government deriving its just power by the consent of the governed. This is no longer government of, by and for the people. It is tyranny. The "compromise" only shifts the problem. It does not elminate it. If insurance companies are paying for those procedures, instead of specifically religious institutions, then what about the people (maybe even the CEO's) in those companies who are being forced to serve an end against their consciences? The "compromise" is a thin, cynical, haughty charade designed only to placate and misdirect. This president is, indeed, an Alinskyite. as Gingrich and Mike (above) have mentioned. What is an Alinskyite? It is one who hides his radical intentions behind a veneer of "nice-guy", mainstream appearance. We should also not forget the dedication of Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals: "Lest we forgteg at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical ... LUCIFER". NOW do we understand why Obama's doings are as destructive as they are?!?!?!?!?
The Sabbath Goy
It's probably not a good analogy to use in a general public campaign, because we want to encourage Orthodox Jews to join with us, but this "compromise" reminds me of the Jewish practice of hiring a non-Jew (goy) to turn on the lights in the synagogue on the Sabbath, because a Jew can't do that or he'd be doing "work on the Sabbath."

Obama somehow thinks there's a moral difference if the insurance company, which gets all its funds from the premiums of its subscribers, somehow provides the desired services for "free." Amazing that this is the same guy who talked so much in 2008 about recognizing the moral dimension to abortion and similar issues. Should someone discuss with him the legal (not to mention moral) culpability rules that surround murder for hire?
Becket Fund response
Becket Fund think tank (lots of lawyers) issued this very good and detailed article:

Obama Administration Offers False “Compromise” on Abortion-Drug Mandate

A quote:

'But this “compromise” is an exercise in obfuscation, not a good faith effort to solve the problem. Thousands of churches, religious organizations, businesses, individuals, and others will still be forced to violate their religious beliefs.'

I have put the link in at the end of the original post (above).
Those that think this "compromise" is a good thing are blind to the reality of Obama's vision of destroying our liberty by making us do what he and his progressive leftist allies think is good for us. Obamacare is an Obomination as is almost everything else this Alinskyite radical (as Newt accurately called him) does.
On Twitter
@Dennis: Just caught this on Twitter:

@frankthorpNBC Frank Thorp V
Rep. Pitts on HHS:"This is a fig leaf and a disingenuous gimmick" Obama "needs to take off his green eye shade and read the First Amendment"
Exactly right Alan. Like the old shell game guess where the pea is?




BreakPoint Blog

Banner