Obomination: The Coercer-in-Chief

Maya Noronha — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:01:00 GMT

Notre Dame Law Professor O. Carter Snead, who formerly served as general counsel to the President’s Council on Bioethics, spoke yesterday at a luncheon on the battle over conscience rights. His remarks emphasized that any person of good will – even those without religious objections to abortifacients, contraceptions or sterilization – should object to the HHS mandate. At its core, the HHS mandate (and the essence of Obamacare) is at odds with liberty and the rule of law.

As mentioned in a previous RNLA post, the HHS rule offered no opportunity for public comment, and involved merely an unenforceable promise to accommodate religious objectors. The rule itself was unchanged. Snead also pointed out yesterday that the Obamacare legislation delegated power to unelected individuals to make important decisions about healthcare. The provision “preventative care” was undefined by Obamacare but the ability to define it was deferred to a new section of the Department of Health and Human Services. Those bureaucrats in that section deferred the authority to an unelected outside body, Institute of Medicine. When the member of the Institute of Medicine was asked about whether they considered religious or moral objections in their analysis, he said the Institute did not consider such “feelings.” “Feelings”? That’s how religious liberty and conscience was belittled in this decisionmaking process. Not only did Obamacare grant power to unelected bureaucrats, but those bureaucrats then deferred that authority outside the government entirely. A group of people unaccountable to the people is running the country, leaving the American people without the self-governance we sought to have. As Snead explained yesterday, Obamacare gives broad “discretion, not the rule of law.”

Snead further explained how any person of good will would object to the massive way that the HHS mandate (and Obamacare itself) takes a large step in entirely removing civil society. Once the HHS fines private religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and charities out of existence, the populations they served will be at Uncle Sam’s doorstep. This is a revolutionary destruction of private institutions and replacing them with a one-size-fits-all government-run service provider that has centralized control.

Snead also emphasized that Obama and his allies have ridiculously reconceived the term coercion. They claim that all private employers having the ability to choose whether to provide certain services is coercive. How was the status quo coercive when the insured had the freedom to find care elsewhere in the drugstore or at a free clinic? Then, they insist that mandating private employers to violate their conscience (or if not, be fined out of existence) is not coercion. Furthermore, both the insured and the insurer have mandates.

Obamacare is a massive power-grab by the federal government and the executive branch in particular. Where is our freedom to keep the health care plan we had? What happened to the “robust” protection of conscience? Those were promises Obama made. Given his track-record, don’t expect him to keep his promise to accommodate self-insured employers with conscientious objections, either.

Obomination: Obama Tramples on the First Amendment

Maya Noronha — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:30:00 GMT

Last Friday, Obama held a press conference offering a “compromise” on the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate. It was assuredly a compromise: Obama declared that religious institutions must compromise their consciences and provide abortifacient and other services.

154 Congressmen wrote to Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius criticizing this rule. Speaker of the House John Boehner declared that the new rule was “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country.” He continued, “In imposing this requirement, the federal government is violating a First Amendment right that has stood for more than two centuries, and it is doing so in a manner that affects millions of Americans and harms some of our nation’s most vital institutions.” Boehner announced that the House will enact an “effective and appropriate” bill protecting rights of conscience.

Many lawsuits have been filed challenging this Obomination. Three lawsuits have been filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on behalf of Belmont Abbey, Colorado Christian College and EWTN in the District of Columbia, Colorado and Alabama. The Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced that the State of Michigan will be a lead state challenging the mandate, joining with the Becket Fund’s cases. Priests for Life announced it is filing a lawsuit as well.

Through this mandate, Obama has ignored the law. First off, Obama’s regulation flies in the face of the the religion clauses in the First Amendment. His administration constructed an exceedingly narrow definition of religion, which characterizes religion it in terms of houses of worship where services are rendered only to those who hold that religion. Even Jesus Christ himself, who administered to the poor and needy who were not Jews, would not qualify under that definition. Ed Whelan of National Review explains how the contraceptive mandate can be successfully challenged under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Obama’s supposed “compromise” announced at a press conference last Friday has no legal force. Despite Obama’s supposed accommodation, the HHS rule is still the same text as before the press conference. There was entirely no accommodation for religious liberty. Nothing was actually changed except how the administration is pitching the mandate in the news media.

It’s not just substance of the law that Obama is flouting. It’s also process. The Department of Health and Human Services did not offer the rule for public comments, rushing an interim final rule instead of following administrative law procedures.

The editorial board of USA Today came out in opposition to the HHS mandate, writing, “The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom deserves more weight than the administration allowed.”

Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the how the Obama administration has “trampled on freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.” Committee chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) said, “A government policy that encroaches on the conscientious objections of religious groups concerns all Americans who value the protections of the First Amendment.” One witness, William Thierfelder, who is president of Belmont Abbey College, said, "I don't think there should be any compromise when it comes to our rights to religious freedom." Amen.

The Republican Lawyer Blog : HHS, Obama

Obomination: The Coercer-in-Chief

Obomination: Obama Tramples on the First Amendment