Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Obamacare Threatens Life and Liberty

Obamacare Threatens Life and Liberty

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5 |Likes:
Published by Jordan Aguilar

More info:

Published by: Jordan Aguilar on Jan 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Obamacare Threatens Life and Liberty; Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality in 2012
 The Supreme Court¶s announcement on Monday that it will consider the constitutionality of some of 
Obamacare¶s provisions, including the individual mandate, has reignited discussion of the health carelaw¶s many problematic provisions. In addition toincreasing insurance premiumsand hampering job
 , Obamacare poses significant threats to the religious liberty of institutions and individuals«and could have a serious negative impact on families. For 
 Belmont Abbey
 , a private Catholic college located in North Carolina, the most serious impact isObamacare¶s threats to religious freedom and conscience rights. Late last week, the
 Becket Fund for  Religious Liberty
announced it will represent Belmont Abbey in a suit the school is bringing against 
 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
on behalf of Belmont Abbey over a newmandate that would force the college to provide insurance plans for students and employees that cover  procedures and prescriptions the college finds morally objectionable. Fulfilling a provision of Obamacare that requires coverage of ³preventative services,´ HHS adopted arule in August that mandates nearly all insurance companies cover contraception and sterilization² without cost to the insured. The rule includes mandatory coverage of ethically controversial drugs like Ella, which can act as an abortifacient. Employers with moral and ethical objections to covering such
 services, like Belmont Abbey, can find little recourse in the narrowly drawn religious exemptionto the
rule. Without a robust religious exemption from the rule and not wishing to subsidize contraception,
 sterilization, or abortion, Belmont Abbey decided to sue HHS to secure the right to provide insurancecoverage in accordance with the school¶s religious beliefs.Violations of institutional and individual conscience rights aren¶t the only troublesome aspects of Obamacare. The law is replete with provisions that can be used to fund abortions and negativelyimpact families. As Heritage research has pointed out since Obamacare first passed, the law includesmultiple
 problematic provisionswith respect to the federal role in funding elective abortion. Additionally,
thelimited and loose conscience protectionsoutlined in the law are inadequate to protect pro-life
medical professionals¶ freedom to practice their profession in accord with their personal beliefs. In addition to loopholes allowing federal funding of abortion, to which the vast majority of American families object, new funding streams for contraception education in schools and marriage penalties inObamacare make the healthcare law very family-unfriendly. Heritage research demonstrates howthe
law restricts parents¶ ability to participate in the medical decisions of their minor children , establishes
disincentives for people to marry, and weakens the religious freedom of individuals and institutions. From conscience rights to parental rights, Obamacare poses many serious challenges to Americanliberty.
noun [count] 
someone or something that has been chosen as a candidate for a job, position, office, honor, award,etc.
 someone or something that has been nominated  He is expected to be the Democraticnominee. There's been a lot of controversy about the nominee to the Supreme Court . ² often followed by for She is one of thenominees for Best Actress.  the President¶s nominee for Attorney General  
 Straight Talk for the Super Committee 
 It has been 12 months since the American people spoke resoundingly at the polls against overtaxing,overspending, and overborrowing, but memories can be short in Washington. All it takes is for a couple of politicos and the so-called "mainstream" media to denigrate the Tea Party and the freshman congressional class--and urge compromise--and you have the spectacle of  some Members of Congress hiding under the neutral-sounding "revenue raising" banner and urging the so-called "Super Committee" to raise taxes.Throw in some character assassination of those holding the line against spending and higher taxes and  you have a potential stampede on Capitol Hill that rivals the flight of a herd of buffalo in an old Western movie. But those Members of Congress who bow to the pressure of more spending and higher taxes will encounter serious trouble from the voters--which President Obama dismissively described as "bitter" as they "cling to guns and religion." The American people have shown time and again that they don¶t suffer from amnesia; if double
crossed by the same old Washington crowd, Americans are not likely to forgive and forget. Many politicians forget that the American people always remember. And many politicians also think that the American people will fall for euphemisms (a fancy word for lies) such as "revenue enhancement." That's another mistake. Every time a politician or a journalist refuses to call something what it is--in this case, raising taxes--the American people know that 
 someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.So here is some straight talk. Members of Congress sitting on the Supercommittee--officially the Joint Select Committee on Deficit  Reduction, which was created in August by the Budget Control Act--should be on notice that if they propose raising taxes when they submit their deficit-cutting recommendations later this month, their 
 problem will be with the American people. America's problem is not that our taxes are too low, but that spending by the federal government is toohigh. Members of Congress who call themselves conservative know that tax increases weaken the economy.They should not waver out of fear of being demagogued by liberals, including President Obama.The case is strong against the snake oil President Obama has been selling on the road for weeks.Conservatives should make this case with force. We should relish demonstrating how President Obamacontinues to press for those taxes that would do the most job-killing damage -- higher tax rates on small businesses, investors, and savers. Raising the top tax rates might make sense to those beholden to the Occupy Wall Street mentality,which believes that the rich must be punished. But when a growing economy with job growth is the goal, advocating this policy is bizarre and self-defeating.
 In view of his background and his goals, it is understandable that President Obama sympathizes withthe left wing mob wreaking havoc in Oakland and other cities across our nation. But it makes no sensewhen a conservative from middle America begins to mouth nostrums about inequality.Conservatives, of course, must push back against absurd claims by President Obama and others that conservatives or Republicans just want to keep taxes on the rich low. Conservative Members of Congress should make the case again and again that principled conservatives, especially those in themedia-vilified Tea Party, don't want government protecting the rich. On the contrary. Most people I know wouldn't mind becoming rich themselves, but they want to do so by their own effort 
and spirit. What these Americans find offensive is that some would become rich--or richer--bybuddying up to the politically powerful. That's what happens, for example, when the government picksa company to subsidize because it likes its product or because company executives know and kow-towto people in high places. That's Solyndra.Conservatives care about freedom. And they care about those who use the opportunities of this great nation, combined with their ownhard work and talents, to become better off for themselves and their children and grandchildren. And even more, conservatives care about the process that leads to wealth creation, because that  process also leads to more jobs and higher incomes for others. Liberals want to separate the taxation of the wealthy from the processes that lead to wealth and jobcreation. The economy just doesn't work that way. Another fact that those serving on the Super Committee should consider as they ponder how to cut the
deficit is that the problem with future budget deficits is not a shortage of revenues, but too much spending. Federal revenues in normal times average about 18.5 percent of our economy. Revenues are deeplydepressed today due to the recession and useless stimulus programs, but revenues will recover as theeconomy recovers. In contrast, while spending is traditionally around 20 percent of the economy,today it stands at 24.3 percent. Although it is projected to decline somewhat as the economy improves
and war spending declines, spending will take off again soon as Social Security and Medicare spending increases.Spending is out of line and is going to get much worse under current policy. Conservatives have noreason to agree to higher taxes just so Washington can spend more.This battle is about both getting spending under control and limiting the size and scope of government.Simply stated, more taxes means more government. And make no mistake, this is what will happen. Liberals will promise spending cuts--they will even promise $3 or $4 in spending cuts for every $1 in raised taxes. Only, these spending cuts will never,ever materialize. This happened under President Reagan and has happened since, and will happenagain. It will be just like that beloved TV special we all watched last week at Halloween. The Lucy Van Pelt liberals will take the ball away and the conservatives will end up like Charlie Brown.We at the Heritage Foundation stand with the 33 Senators who last week sent a letter to the membersof the Super Committee, asking that their recommendations meet the following criteria:

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->