Why do some want to forfeit rights in the false name of abortion as "healthcare"?

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear the challenge by the Christian-owned Hobby Lobby stores against the HHS birth control mandate, which requires all employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception, abortifacient drugs and sterilizations. 

Hobby Lobby's employee health insurance currently does offer 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptions required by Obamacare. They simply object to the remaining ones that cause abortions, because abortion violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

Not surprisingly, the hysterical feminists and their male counterpart supporters are in a self-righteous, Sandra Fluke-like frenzy over Hobby Lobby's audacious "attempt to impose its religious beliefs" on women by "denying them access" to birth control - which they wrongly refer to as "women's healthcare."

First of all, Hobby Lobby - specifically its founder, David Green, is not forcing any religious beliefs on anyone. If Hobby Lobby were to say any employee working for them was not allowed to use contraception as a condition of employment, the argument may have a bit more merit. But even then, not really, for the simple fact that nobody is forced to work at Hobby Lobby.

Second, preventing or terminating a pregnancy is not healthcare. Maternity is a valid health issue to the extent of "well-care" pre-natal visits, delivery, and the like. I don't know of any company that objects to coverage of maternity for those to whom it applies (although, under Obamacare, plenty of us object to being forced to carry it, including men, who do not need it). But contraception or abortifacients have more to do with the woman's decision on whether to pursue or terminate pregnancy. That is simply not healthcare (not to mention the fact that there are actually many health dangers that come with contraception use and abortion).

Other Hobby Lobby critics argue that a corporation is not a person, and therefore has no constitutional rights. I marvel at these people's grasp of reality as I try to imagine a company coming into existence and functioning without individual people to make it all happen - people who, in this case, are individuals with guaranteed rights as American citizens.

But reason and logic are non-existent to the group of frantic people who define women solely by their reproductive systems and literally freak out at the notion that a woman may have to make her reproductive choices on her own -- without the forced complicity of her employer.

It could be almost humorous to reflect on all the times we hear pro-abortion supporters tell the government to keep its hands off women's bodies and its noses out of their bedrooms, while these same people want employers to become directly involved against their will in these supposedly private aspects of women's lives. The problem is, there is nothing funny about what is happening here.

Indeed, it's a gravely serious matter that our government, through the HHS mandate, is throwing out our constitutional right to freedom of religion - including the free expression thereof - and is replacing it with a restricted parameter of how we can live our religious beliefs. Should the government get its way, we will be free to go to church (for now) and read the Bible in the privacy of our own homes (for now), but will need to check all our beliefs at the door upon entering the public square.

To all those who think an individual should be forced to choose between the law and his faith in the false name of "women's healthcare", I simply ask, what makes a woman's desire to use contraception or abortifacients -- which she is free to access on her own -- more important than any citizen's constitutional right not to partake in these actions on religious grounds? Why should these women's beliefs be more important than anyone else's? 

There's a dangerous precedent being set here by our government, one that could be used against all of us depending on which ideology is in power. So with that, I leave the Hobby Lobby critics with this age-old caveat: Be careful what you wish for. Stifled freedoms like the one you're demanding to stifle could just as easily be used against you should someone else be in power who doesn't think like you. For your own sake, you should pray that Hobby Lobby wins its case, and then you should thank them for fighting on your behalf to keep the constitutional rights you'd be sorry to lose - whether you realize it now or not.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Obama's healthcare trick is a flagrant violation of law

By delaying the individual health insurance mandate for one year, President Obama made a desperate ploy yesterday to try to save the Democrats in next year’s mid-term elections. What he did not do was anything that will help the millions of people facing the loss of their health plans (myself included). He merely punted the ball to land in the same dangerous field a year from now after the elections are over.

He did say something interesting yesterday, however, when he said, “I didn’t realize how difficult it was to buy healthcare.”  The man is  52 years old. He is just now learning this? More importantly, what makes a man who has obviously never bought health insurance for himself think he can force it on 350 million Americans?

Remember how President George H.W. Bush was excoriated for not being familiar with price scanners at a grocery market? But Obama’s worshipers are just fine with the fact that he has never even partaken in the very part of the economy that he is trying to overtake.

But most disturbing is the fact that Obama's supporters are also apparently fine with the fact that Obama is flagrantly breaking the law, because he is absolutely not authorized to change the healthcare law willy nilly. While his supporters admonish those of us against the law to “deal with it…it’s the law,” they have no problem when the president changes it at whim – which is completely unconstitutional to do. Of course, when facing a complete policy failure, Obama's standard tactic is to ignore the law.

Breitbart.com puts it this way: “Everyone should know from their high-school government classes that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to make federal laws, and Article II of the Constitution gives the American president the executive power to administer and enforce those laws. Article II then includes the language about how the president must faithfully execute those laws.”

Breitbart.com continues, “Obama’s announcement (today) is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause. The provisions of Obamacare causing enormous trouble for insurance plans are mandatory, and only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act. Every day provides additional proof that Obamacare is a complete train wreck, but it is one regarding which only Congress can change the terms….” not Obama.

What Obama is doing should terrify all of us. Still, his blind followers will likely defend him to the end because he carries the political “D” after his name. But they would be wise to abandon this childish ground for support because this is not about Democrat vs. Republican, right vs. left. This is about the identity of America itself. Are we a nation of law, or have we devolved into an unsettling combination of banana republic/dictatorship? Under Obama, we’re rapidly heading for the latter, toward the completion of Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform America." 

Will Obama's sycophants ever wake up to realize this? I won’t hold my breath. Besides, I’m pretty sure my government-approved healthcare plan wouldn’t cover the consequences of doing so.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Help support Senate bill to protect pain-capable unborn children

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670) in the U.S. Senate. This bill would protect unborn children from abortion, nationwide, beginning at 20 weeks’ fetal age, based on scientific evidence that by this stage of development (if not earlier), the baby will experience excruciating pain when subjected to typical late abortion procedures. This is the most important single pro-life bill to be proposed in Congress since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was enacted ten years ago. 

This new bill (S. 1670) is almost identical to (H.R. 1797, a bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives.  Now, it’s time to demand that the U.S. Senate vote on this landmark legislation. 

Thirty-six (36) senators have already joined Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as co-sponsors of the new legislation.  Please add your voice. Click here to find tools that make it easy for you to send e-mail messages to your two U.S. senators in just a couple of minutes.  You will be shown a suggested message, which you can modify or replace as you see fit. 

If your senators have already cosponsored S. 1670, thank them.  If they have not done so, urge them to sign on as cosponsors immediately.  In either case, please express your strong support for S. 1670 -- and ask them to urge Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) to allow an early Senate vote on S. 1670.

To view an up-to-date list of all of the co-sponsors of S. 1670, arranged by state, click here.

To see a video of National Right to Life Senior Legislative Counsel Susan T. Muskett go toe-to-toe with two critics of the bill on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" (November 8), click here.

The forces that are opposed to legal protections for unborn children have financial resources that are far greater than pro-life advocates.  Already, the radical pro-abortion group "NARAL Pro-Choice America" is running a TV ad against S. 1670.  Please take a moment to add your support for this bill.

Source: National Right to Life

Where's the left's outrage on recent murders of two young black people in Michigan?

Earlier this week we learned of the tragic death of Tiane Brown, a young mother of three in the process of getting her law degree at Wayne State University before she was brutally murdered by a gunshot to the head.

On the morning of Oct. 18, 20 year-old Eastern Michigan student and football player, Demarius Reed, was gunned down in front of Ypsilanti’s University Green Apartments. Police say robbery is a possible motive in the incident and the investigation remains open.

Both these young people had very promising futures and reputations for being good, positive role models. My prayers and heart go out to their families and all who are grieving for them.

But what I can't help notice is the lack of 24/7 press coverage either of these murders is getting. It makes you wonder where the media's priorities are and what constitutes a prominent story. 

When Trayvon Martin was killed in a scuffle with neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, it was all we heard about for months. The reason for that, of course, is because Zimmerman, who ended up firing the fatal shot on Martin, wasn't black. In their desperate attempt to sensationalize the case, media talking heads were forced to label Zimmerman a "white Hispanic", because "regular" Hispanics are apparently too much a minority themselves to ever be guilty of the race-driven crimes against black people that the media want us to believe are commonplace.

Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race-baiters were on the scene, fanning the flames of the racism accusations. President Obama himself wasted no time in weighing in on the case, emotionally telling the American people how closely he could relate to the systemic racism that leads to things like the Trayvon death. He even likened Trayvon to his own son - if he had one. 

But when it comes to Brown and Reed, I ask, where are the celebrities wearing hoodies? Where is CBS, ABC and NBC with their righteous denouncing of violence? Couldn't they generate even half the emotion for Brown and Reed that they did for the less than angelic Trayvon Martin?

Other stories in the news have also caught Obama's attention. When Texas state Senator Wendy Davis launched a lengthy filibuster recently to protest safety regulations and restrictions on abortion clinics, Obama took time out of his trip to Africa to contact her with showers of praise.

When Sandra Fluke announced to the country that she believed we the citizens should pay for her contraception so she could have sex as she pleases without "consequence", Obama heralded her a hero and the Democrats even made her their keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention last year.

But when hard working, young black people are gunned down in the prime of their very promising lives, Obama doesn't see it worthy to even offer a phone call of consolation to their devastated families. Of course, Obama cannot possibly contact the family of every murder victim in America, but perhaps if these recent victims' killers were white, he would. And the Jessie's and Al's of the world would follow suit, decrying racism on every news outlet that would host them.

Until then, though, they will of course remain silent, which only highlights how the contrast between what the leftists consider attention-worthy, and what barely evokes a perfunctory shrug, is very telling of where their real priorities lie.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Despite real problems, Obama's priority is unisex hats for military

The Obama administration has issued a directive to create a more unisex uniform for members of the Armed Forces, specifically asking for a more gender-neutral hat for the Marine Corps.  Currently, men and women wear gender specific uniforms and hats.

This may be a crazy and wild thought, but don’t we have bigger fish to fry in our country than bringing in the fashion state-police for a military makeover?  What’s worse is that to replace the hats would cost taxpayers $8 million. After Obama has already financially gutted the military to the point of threatening our very national security, how can he possibly justify spending one dime on something this ridiculous?

It's simple. Unfortunately, this is just one more example of how Obama sees our military not as a mode of national defense and security, but as a social experiment. It’s an experiment he’s conducting to see how he can use the military to prove petty political points and even inflict damage on military members themselves and US citizens at large. It started with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” -- which some military experts warn will undermine unit cohesion and effectiveness -- and quickly escalated to such things as allowing the Army to categorize citizen groups like the American Family Association as terrorist threats.

And as we all know, Obama actually spent money during the government shutdown to bar US war veterans from open memorials and used the shutdown to deny timely military death benefits to military members (even though Republicans offered funding to provide these benefits, which the Democrats rejected). And, of course, he also suspended religious services for Catholics during the shutdown (Protestant services were allowed to continue).

Most chilling, Obama has been methodically purging our military of generals and other leaders throughout our military since taking office - on no grounds of wrongdoing - just as Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and other dictators did in preparation for overthrowing their political foes. But it begs the questions, why is Obama doing this and with whom is he replacing these open positions? 

It’s disconcerting, to say the least, that Obama doesn’t seem to have much interest in resolving real issues, like the 43 million people on food stamps, or the covered-up murders of US citizens in Benghazi, the murder of thousands of people daily through abortion, or the monstrous ObamaCare debacle which is clearly more about control than healthcare, but he has all the time in the world deconstruct our national defense while orchestrating military fashion shows designed to emasculate our soldiers.

Most unfortunately, Obama's loyal supporters continue to swallow the progressive propaganda being spoon fed to them daily, and, therefore, continue to praise him despite these numerous signs of his blatant disdain for America. The truth is though, they need to wake up, and we all need to be vigilant, because this president is clearly up to no good.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Obama orders shutdown of Catholic Mass; threatens arrest of priests

As the government "shutdown" enters its third week (during all this time, only about 23% of the government has been shut down, by the way) the Obama Administration continues to play politics....and worse.

We heard last week how the official presidential golf course remained open, while US veterans were denied access to the WWII and Vietnam Memorials because of the "shutdown". We heard how Michelle Obama's fitness website was kept functional while the national Amber Alert system was shut down (until protests intimidated Obama into finally turning the system back on).

But perhaps most ominous is that active US military Catholics are being denied Holy Mass. Using the government shutdown as his excuse, Obama saw - and took - the opportunity to aim his arrow at his most coveted target: Christians.

Catholic military chaplains are being denied access to military bases to say Mass supposedly because of the shutdown. Because the chaplains are paid contractors to perform Masses, Obama felt it was not a justifiable expense. The kicker though is that some priests are offering to say the Masses free of charge. Obama's response to their offer has been a resounding no. 

This happened recently to Father Ray Leonard, who serves at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia, but was not allowed to celebrate Mass this past weekend. Father Ray is contracted by the Defense Department to meet the spiritual needs of Catholics, but the chapel doors were locked with a sign affixed that said, “Shutdown: No Catholic service till further notice.” Protestant services on the naval base were allowed to continue, by the way - only Catholics were denied services, including marriage preparation, baptisms, confirmation and the like.

Father Leonard had this to say about it: “This is our church. Catholics have an expectation and obligation to attend Mass and we were told, ‘No you can’t go to church this week…“ My parishioners were upset. They were angry and dismayed. They couldn’t believe that in America they’d be denied access to Mass by the government.”

As a result of this astonishing attack on religious freedom, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Fr. Leonard, who served Tibetan populations in China for 10 years, informed the court in an affidavit; “In China, I was disallowed from performing public religious services due to the lack of religious freedom in China. I never imagined that when I returned home to the United States, that I would be forbidden from practicing my religious beliefs as I am called to do, and would be forbidden from helping and serving my faith community.”

On October 4, 2013, Fr. Leonard was ordered to stop performing all of his duties as the base’s Catholic Chaplain, even on a voluntary basis. He was also told that he could be arrested if he violated that order. The approximately 300 Catholic families served by Fr. Leonard at Kings Bay have been unable to attend Mass on base since the beginning of the shutdown. The nearest other church is about 16 miles away - not a feasible option for those on base without cars or whose extremely busy schedules do not permit the time it would take to walk 16 miles to Mass, attend it, and walk back.

Additionally, Fr. Leonard was locked out of his on-base office and the chapel. Fr. Leonard was also denied access to the Holy Eucharist and other articles of his Catholic faith. The order has caused the cancellation of daily and weekend mass, confession, marriage preparation classes and baptisms as well as prevented Fr. Leonard from providing the spiritual guidance he was called by his faith to provide

US Congressman Tim Huelskamp said, “Time and time again this Administration demonstrates it is waging a war against the very religious freedoms upon which America was founded. This is exactly why we worked to pass legislation (House Concurrent Resolution 58) this past weekend – to protect the religious liberties of all those who bravely serve in our Armed Forces."

What's particularly bad is that we would have to pass resolutions in America to restore the very rights upon which our country was founded - rights that President Obama does not believe we should have. The worst thing we could do is dismiss this action as an isolated incident that means nothing. On the contrary, this is an unmistakable move by Obama to advance his war on our religious liberties. And being that Obama has repeatedly shown hostility to Christians, this action against military Catholics -- much like the HHS mandate -- is direct government interference with our right to religious freedom. It's critical that we not lose sight of the fact that a country without that profound and fundamental right is not a free country at all.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

UPDATE: Late yesterday afternoon, in response to the lawsuit, three attorneys from the Department of Justice contacted TMLC attorney Erin Mersino by phone and indicated that Father Leonard could resume all of his religious duties beginning this morning, and that the Chapel would be open for all Catholic activities.  These representations made by the Department of Justice attorneys were confirmed by orders to Father Leonard delivered through the Navy chain of command.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said, “The actions of the Federal Government were a blatant attack on religious liberty. I would never have imagined that our Government would ever bar Catholic Priest from saying Mass under threat of arrest and prevent Catholics from participating in their religious exercises.  Allowing the Chapel doors to open and Father Leonard to fulfill his priestly responsibilities does not erase the Constitutional violations that occurred.  We don’t want this to occur again the next time there is a government shutdown. Our lawsuit will continue.”

Democrats forced government shutdown - not Republicans

The Republicans have passed and submitted a budget bill that would have kept the government funded and running. They only asked in return that Democrats be willing to let go of their Obamacare subsidies and exemptions. The Democrats refused to do so. Every single Democrat voted last night to shut down the government. In fact, Democrats in the Senate have rejected every single offer Republicans presented to them (just like their leader, President Obama, who himself said he would not negotiate with Republicans on anything. He is, however, completely willing to negotiate with the leaders of Iran and Russia - just not fellow Americans - but I digress). The bottom line is that it's the Democrats' refusal to compromise with Republicans and to give up their precious subsidies and Obamacare exemptions that has forced the shutdown (subsidies that you and I don't get, by the way - only Congress and their staff are entitled to those, and they're happy to let us pay for them). Do not forget that.

Of course Democrats and President Obama are blaming the shutdown on Republicans. And of course, there will be plenty of uninformed Americans who will fall for the lies.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.