2014
The following is an excerpt from a NYT editorial. It argues that the Affordable Care Act does not violate religious freedom when it comes to the contraception mandate. Unfortunately, what the liberal left continually misses are those things that violate common sense.
Mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives (and many other things) is absurd. It’s not a religious issue, it’s a common sense issue. First, programs covering contraceptives for the truly poor were in effect long before Obamacare. Beyond that contraceptives are affordable and certainly not an insurable risk. In addition, the vast majority of employer plans covered contraceptives before Obamacare weighing the cost against the cost of the program and often as a result of labor negotiations.
This is a perfect example of people not wanting to divert money from other personal expenses in the mistaken belief that contraceptives are now “free.” Those opposed to this non insurance spending are accused to waging war on women. In fact, special interest groups are waging war on common sense and affordable health care … true health care. We should be focused on the word “mandate” and we should be asking the reason for such a mandate and why such an expense of choice becomes a shared financial obligation of all Americans.
When it gets right down to the fiscal logic of it all, why is this any different than mandating coverage of one new pair of shoes, a bi-weekly manicure, an annual tattoo and a daily lottery ticket for women, any one of which would pay for the contraceptives? Spending your money on those things is ok, but buying your own pills once a month is an unaffordable burden? And yes, the poor spend money on all those things too. It appears the liberal mind is incapable of other than misplaced emotional thought assuming the incompetence of people while seeking their dependence.
This Administration is a perfect example of this distorted thinking. Read this quote regarding the contraceptive mandate. “Get the care they need!” Really, what care is that?
The administration’s policy will “respect the concerns of houses of worship and other nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work,” Mrs. Sebelius said in June, when the final rules setting the compromise were released.
So, this Administration sees the mandate for free contraceptives as essential to health care, but prescription drugs essential to life or management of a serious disease can be subject to high deductibles or co-payments higher than the total cost of birth control pills and that’s okay? This is beyond stupid, it’s a farce which should make it very clear that what really matters is politics.
The contraception mandate in the new health care reform law accommodates religious beliefs. It exempts houses of worship from having to provide contraceptive coverage without a co-pay. Church-affiliated organizations like schools and hospitals need only send a short form to their insurance administrator, which takes care of the coverage.
There is no breach of religious freedom, nor any undue burden involved. But that was not enough for a judge of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, Brian Cogan, who decided that even filing a form is too much to ask. He ruled in favor of two high schools and two health care systems affiliated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under the law, the federal government may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the government demonstrates that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest. The judge said the government had not proved a compelling interest and that there are better, less restrictive ways to achieve the government’s goal. But Judge Cogan should never have reached those issues since requiring religious-affiliated entities to inform insurance administrators that they wish to exclude contraceptive coverage — which some already do — does not rise to a “substantial burden” on religious exercise by any reasonable standard.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 