Maybe, somebody ought to read this to our US Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, as she seems to has misplaced its importance:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That would be the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the clueless (or graduates of the Government school system); from the US Constitution, by the way, and not the Human Secularist one. Why is this important, and why should Sen. Shaheen at least be embarrassed?
On a day that historically that has been reserved for the Nation to give thanks to God by President Lincoln for His bounty, a bedrock idea of this county, the New York Times (the Bible of Liberalism according to its editor, Jill Abramson, who said "In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion…" ) sees fit to further the process of denying those of faith their Freedom ensconced in the Constitution simply because it is in the tank for Obamacare.
And US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) goes along for their disingenuous ride as the NYT continues to prop up Obamacare, tosses the importance of religious tenets of faith minded people over away in washing religion from the public square, and continuing their "precedence march" of State’s importance over citizens in determining what is ethical:
The Battle Over Birth Control
In August, Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, announced new rules that included contraceptives for women in the package of preventive health care services that all insurers must cover without a deductible or co-payment beginning next year.
RelatedThe policy follows the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine. It will help drive down the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion by making birth control more accessible.
It was distressing but came as no surprise that the new rules prompted protests from Roman Catholic bishops and other church leaders. What is surprising, and even more distressing, is that the White House is considering caving to their call for an expansive exemption that would cover employees of hospitals, universities, charitable organizations and other entities that are associated with religious organizations but serve the general public and benefit from public money.
What they don’t go into detail (knowing it destroys their narrative) is that in proclaiming "for the public good" is in direct opposition to the freedom to religious belief. What is it when one is forced to believe something that otherwise they would not voluntarily by the State?
Yes, Tyranny. Not any surprise, that’s what Big Government brings ("The Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen"):
President Obama should stand firm against the church’s overreaching. Allowing a broad exemption for health plans sponsored by employers that object to contraceptives coverage would amount to imposing church doctrine on millions of women who may differ with the church’s stand on birth control and who may not be Catholic. It would deny them coverage for a critical need.
Overreach? Imposing church doctrine? Quick, get the ambulance (or the hearse), for the NYT editors ran to the logic cliff – and jumped over, willingly!
This is a result of wishing to deleting God from the public square, a failure of know one’s history, and believing that the Progressive vision is the only one that is of value. Why would that be overreach? If any organization, especially the Catholic church (joined by many evangelicals in other closely related topics) has stated doctrines that it has held for thousands of years, why shouldn’t they stand up for them? Why is it that pop culture should overrule long held theology (after all, look what has happened to the "mainline" Protestant churches who have done just that)? And how is that imposing? Or does the NYT believes that using Government to micromanage everything decision in life is "public good"?
As with the Occupy Wall Streeters, many Socialists, and certainly Communists, the New York Times seems to hold the believe that people are mere "wage slaves" to larger organizations where they work (wonder if Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman into that slave category). They seem to forget that people, if they do not like the policies of the firm that employs them, can shop their skills elsewhere. I, for one, could care less that a Catholic organization does not cover birth control. And frankly, the cost of such is SO low, one could ask "why should a plan cover it, except it continues income redistribution?"
The new rules already contain an exemption for churches and other houses of worship, similar to provisions upheld by the highest courts in California and New York. Moreover, nothing in the rules requires religious objectors to use contraceptives or stands in the way of advocating against their use. By now, some 28 states require employer-provided insurance plans to cover contraception, so the federal policy is hardly a radical departure.
Once again, we see the tincture of truth, in conjunction with the fine art of careful wordsmithing, make something appear to be something that is pure vaporware. The exemption is ONLY for the actual employees of a church (e.g., priest, pastor, other workers) and not for the actual flocks. And notice the deflection of "nothing in the rules requires religious objectors to use contraceptives" in trying to advance the idea that while they may not use themselves, they certainly have to pay for them in their premiums so that others can do what they themselves would not.
Tell me, NYT, why is it that you support conscientious objectors when it comes to military service, but do not support the same concept otherwise? Isn’t that plain intellectual dishonesty? Or is that beneath the lofty haughty elites that bumble their way through their hallowed halls (or, with recent cutbacks, the hollow hallways)?
Several lawmakers who have spoken to the White House about the issue believe the president is leaning toward broadening the exemption, Robert Pear of The Times reported last week. And many Democrats in Congress who fought to secure coverage of birth control under the new health care law are understandably furious at Mr. Obama’s apparent wobbling.
Well, a sop to the sovereignty that is supposed to be the purview of the individual from President Obama! And this does make clear ("many Democrats in Congress") the partisanship of the Gray Lady (who also doesn’t say that is also the reason why "many Democrats" are also no longer IN Congress. Why is it that the NYT decided to not give the complete context that the people decided that Obamacare was not in their self-interest and "threw the bums out"?
And now for Shaheen to pipe up:
“Americans of all religious faiths overwhelmingly support broad access to birth control,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat of New Hampshire.
Really, Jeanne? I really want to know where the poll that this blanket statement really comes from. I also really want to know if Jeanne Shaheen is pulling a stunt similar to the NYT’s?
Tell me, Jeanne – do you just mean that it should be available, or that an overwhelming majority believe that they should be on the hook to pay for someone else’s fooling around?
After all, here in NH, we’ve grown tired of your fooling around with healthcare in this state with SB 711 – it was so nice of you to set up the stringent conditions such that "broad support" by industry companies that provided healthcare insurance dropped from double digits to two.
We’ve grown tired of your fooling around with legitimate forms of government. Forget the fact that you are a Progressive Democrat. Forget the fact that Conservative Republicans run State Government. But it is hard to forget that the people of New Hampshire voted the latter into office, kicking out your extremists Democrat sojourners from State power, but let’s put that aside for a moment.
Why I don’t wish anyone to put aside is the fact you used the power of the Federal Government to override the duly elected officials here in NH to fund Planned Parenthood in a similar vein! You swore an oath, as a State Senator and as Governor to the NH Constitution and the people of New Hampshire.
Yet, you saw fit to throw the Proper Role of Government (e.g., the philosophy of Federalism), you threw the wishes of the people of the State of NH, under the bus…
…just like the New York Times is trying to do to everyone of faith. Good job, ma’am!
