Many of us have known since the get-go that Obamacare would turn into a grotesque monstrosity, a Rube Goldberg manifestation of massive, intrusive, nanny-state government.
It came as no surprise, therefore, that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a rule that religious institutions providing health care insurance to their employees must include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients, even if the sponsoring organization (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church) is morally and theologically opposed to these things.
In the past few days, I have been absorbing commentary in columns and blogs, on talk radio and on TV from pundits at all points of the political spectrum. One thing is crystal clear: Those who are conservative (from a constitutional standpoint) “get it.” They realize that this HHS policy is a flagrant trampling of the First Amendment.
But those who support the Obama administration in this heavy-handed mandate seem to take a different tack. The constitutional issue is nowhere to be seen.
Some of them point out that a huge majority of American women use contraceptives, and others chastise the Catholic Church for being repressive and backward. ("Get with the times!")
There actually seems to be a mentality among those who support this arrogant government overreach that those who oppose it are Victorian prudes who are appalled by premarital sex, promiscuity and women's opportunity to enjoy sex without getting married. These people actually believe that opponents of the HHS policy are uptight party-poopers who relish the culture wars. This speaks to a shallow view of America and utter ignorance of our founding document, the U.S. Constitution.
These people also fail to grasp that many people may end up doing without health care as Christian-sponsored hospitals and clinics decide to stop offering health care rather than violate their faith-inspired beliefs.
To their credit, some liberals, including many who are Catholic and got duped into supporting Obamacare, are harshly critical of the admiistration's policy. They at least have some knowledge of the constitutional ramifications; they grasp the seriousness of this federal intrusion.
It will be interesting to see whether the arrogant ones in the administrtion will back-track. If they do, it will be strictly because of politics, not due to an appreciation of the constitutional implications.
Comments