Close X Cookies are necessary for the proper functioning of 24hGold.com. By continuing your navigation on our website, you are accepting the use of cookies.
To learn more about cookies ...
EnglishFrench
Gold & Silver Prices in

It’s Time to Abort Obamacare

IMG Auteur
Published : February 14th, 2012
520 words - Reading time : 1 - 2 minutes
( 14 votes, 4.1/5 ) , 3 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
0
Send
3
comment
Our Newsletter...
Category : Editorials

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 



<< Previous article
Rate :Average :4.1 (14 votes)
>> Next article
Latest comment posted for this article
Obamacare and hatred of traditional family religious values. And frowns on divorce, abortion and sodomy(homosexual - same sex -), and people trying to lower the age of consent to 12 years of age and instead of going through the our representatives in the  Read more
Invention - 2/16/2012 at 12:01 PM GMT
Rating :  4  2
Top articles
World PM Newsflow
ALL
GOLD
SILVER
PGM & DIAMONDS
OIL & GAS
OTHER METALS
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Obamacare and hatred of traditional family religious values. And frowns on divorce, abortion and sodomy(homosexual - same sex -), and people trying to lower the age of consent to 12 years of age and instead of going through the our representatives in the State or Federal gov`t, they go through the courts - Legistration through Ligation, like what FDR did to pass his reforms in 1933,34. To pack the courts with two more justices to the Supreme Court namely W `0` Douglas and Hugo Black - and low and behold the mess we have today. By the force of law, however it came to be. Just think if the justices had been Elmer Fud and Lucy probably just the same. Douglas graduated from where? well no where, he who? William 0(zero) Douglas, my what has been based on a defered opinion. Everything! And being gay is ok, well I guess that is what happened to the dinosaur`s they got sweet on each other and became extinct. Very logical, right.... Its amazing after talking to some people(men) for a year at a group meeting, 98% of them that I met with and were told to me by them were molested by other men when they where young. Well this behavior doesn`t sound like it was nurtured in a natural way, so to speak, but was forced upon them, by brute force and the law of the jungle. And using the force of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus in His(Jesus) name cast out demons and set some poor hammered soul free. Does this sound logical? Some would say I have a hatred of these people, but I was one of these same, too. So I know first hand from experience. Empirical, my life. I for one am voting for Ron Paul in November as a write in as least. Oh by the way I`m not a Catholic, but a crazy Pentecostal(Acts 2:4) Christian.
Rate :   4  2Rating :   2
EmailPermalink
I regret having to say this, but Dr. Paul has got this one wrong and he has managed to do so on many levels. To begin with, IUDs are a form of birth control that prevent pregnancy. They in no way are used to abort a fetus. Next, while religious freedom is considered to be sacrosant, practice of this tenet has always fallen short of the theory. Just ask Mormons who had to abandon polygamy or Muslims being prevented from building mosques or Rastafarians sitting in jail for smoking weed. And we might also consider that those Christians who actually believe in Jesus' teaching that we should turn the other cheek are forced to contribute to the most powerful war machine this planet has ever known through their taxes.
Let me now turn my attention to the preposterous claim that this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, but everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for Catholic values. It is entirely about health care and says nothing about Catholic values. And as for those Catholic values that Dr. Paul wants to champion, 98% of American Catholics practice some form of birth control. The mandate does not require the remaining 2% (mostly nuns) to practice birth control. And as Dr. Paul should know, laws are written to apply to everyone, not just certain segments of the population. It is why Mormons can now have but a single spouse and why Rastas sit in jail. If Catholics do not like the law of the land, they should work to elect representatives who will change the law or they should go join the pot heads in jail.
As for the heirarchy of the Catholic church and their moral values, suffice it to say that a shockingly large number of them are the very same folks who have been raping your children for generations and the current pope was instrumental in protecting many of the rapists, just moving them to a different parrish so as that they could find new victims. So then, unless you agree that raping children is a good thing, you will have to agree that the Catholic church does not come down on the right side of every moral argument and there exists the possibility that they are sorely misguided on this one. And yes, I hear some of you saying that the Catholic church is very much against the rape of children. To that I say that I judge things based upon what is done, not what is paid lip service to. Talk is cheap; hell, it is free. It is our actions by which we are to be judged.
As for Dr. Paul's Interpretation of the first Amendment, he coud not be more wrong. One is free to practice whatever religion one wants, but if the dictates of your religion cause you to break the law, you are going to jail. Afterall, America is a republic, not a theocracy. It is why American soldiers can be ordered into combat on the sabbath and woe unto the soldier who disobeys his marching orders for religious reasons. And it is why Mormons can have but one spouse without facing time in the pokey. The law of the land always has and always will take priority over any and all religious dictates. If you think it should be otherwise, perhaps you would be happier living in Iran
Rate :   2  7Rating :   -5
EmailPermalink
Ron Paul is against Obamacare. He says, "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." And, of course, as he says, the government may not. Case closed?

Ah, not so fast. Ron Paul, in the Aug 11th debate about the self same heathcare, said, on the other hand, that he does not opposed Romneycare. Why? Because: "the Federal Government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things." You see though he opposes the Federdal Government dictating mandatory healthcare, he believes the States may do as they wish -- under the 10th Amendement. As President he would voice disapproval against any State doing such, but would feel constitutionally constrained from blocking it. In rebuttal, during that debate, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum aruged that wrong was wrong whether initiated from the Federal or State government level.

So you see Ron Paul is first a State Rightist and second a defender of individual rights. This is not an isolated instance. He has argued that Lincoln had no right to prevent the South from leaving the Union and interfering in slavery.

There are layers to Ron Paul that need to be carefully unravelled. The true champion of individual liberty, among the candidates still in the running, is Rick Santorum.

This revelation may be unpopular but that does not make it untrue.
Rate :   7  7Rating :   0
EmailPermalink
Subscribe to 24hGold’s daily market briefing
  • Prices and data of precious metals in 119 currencies and world mining companies
  • Daily analysis of the economy, markets and more
  • Free, daily and indispensable
Stay informed, subscribe now !
* Your email will never be shared.