• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

ACLU for tyranny

I've had a nice thing or two to say about the ACLU recently. Wouldn't want to make a habit of that, though, so allow me to note with distaste that organization's astonishing and repugnant claim that President Obama's decision to mandate coverage for birth control does not violate the religious-liberty guarantee of the First Amendment:

The rights in the Constitution are not granted to American citizens because the government decided to offer them beneficently at their discretion.  They exist in the document as a testament to our natural rights, part of our innate humanness, and are detailed in the Constitution as a bar to government’s overreach in trampling them.  If the ACLU can’t figure that much out, then not only have they jumped the shark, they’ve nuked the fridge and made themselves entirely irrelevant except for the elitist crowd that cheers on tyranny.

The ACLU is especially hostile to spiritual matters, being one of the prime movers in the effort to chase all religion from the public square, as if a creche in a park or a poster of the 10 Commandments on a schoolhouse wall is going to hopelessly corrupt the nation. Now they apparently want to follow religion into its private spaces and continue the mugging there.

Comments

Roderic Converse
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 6:08pm

The religious part of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is not a grant of religious freedom to U.S. citizens.  It also doesn't grant freedom of speech, press, or assembly.

It doesn't grant me the right to keep and bear arms or the right not to bear witness against myself.  The amendments do not even have to be there.  

It isn't hard to prove.  Although, I realize that some people may have to read the documents thousands of times before it settles in and the little light pops on.

First, keep it simple.  Read the Ninth Amendment.  Read it many, many times.  "Retained" is the key word.

Second, read #84 of the Federalist Papers.  Read it many, many times.  I doubt if there is a bookstore in America that doesn't have a copy.  It's about constitutional power and not constitutional rights.

They are not grants of rights.  The Bill of Rights are statements of what is.  The Ninth Amendment also keeps these statements from being taken to narrowly.

The whole purpose of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was originally to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.  Later, Congressman Bingham of Ohio realized that wouldn't work.  A better way would be to overturn Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peter (32 U.S.) 243 of 1833.  So the wording was changed to "no State shall make or enforce any which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States," and these privileges and immunities are "chiefly defined to the first eight amendments" (App. to the Congressional Globe, March 31, 1871, pg. 84).

If these rights were grants from a benevolent federal government we wouldn't have needed the 14th Amendment.  If these these were grants from a benevolent federal government we really would not be a free people.  Even if you are not a Catholic, you should be able to feel a horse bit being placed in your mouth.

Christopher Swing
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:45pm

Well, so much for accuracy. You mean Obama's reiteration of a Bush-era ruling.

"President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

"Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

"In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

BTW, the constitution doesn't "grant" rights. It specifically enumerates rights of people that the government shall not infringe. We have rights, the government doesn't "give" them to us. That the constitution "grants rights" is a dangerous misunderstanding to have. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they have such a poor understanding.

And last I checked, immunity from health insurance regulations for companies wasn't a special right for entities (not people) churches that happen to run them ever had.

Tim
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:50pm

When a church organization runs a business, why shouldn't it be subject to the same rules as other businesses? (I'd also argue that the church-run businesses -- in this area, that includes banquet halls, a health club and restaurants -- should pay all the same taxes as others, but that's another issue.) The church-run businesses I know of don't require employees to belong to their faith, so why should all employees have to abide by the restrictions of that faith? The rule would make birth control more available, not mandatory, for employees.

I'm also concerned about tyranny, but I don't see it in the insurance-coverage issue here.

But if the government required a Catholic-owned hospital to perform abortions, that would be tyranny.

Harl Delos
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:12pm

When Utah wanted to have statehood, we didm't demand that they insert a clause in their proposed state constitution forbidding polygamy, a practice that the dominant church in the territory held to be an important doctrine.  Oh, wait, we did?

Oh, well, then we didn't pass a law defining marriage to be "between one man and one woman", in opposition to the traditional definition of marriage as "between one man and one woman of the same race" even though marriage is a religious ritual that many churches wanted to extend to same-sex couples.  Oh, wait, we did?

Oh, well, we didn't insist that church-owned colleges end the practice of racial segregation in admission and in student housing.  Oh, wait, we did?

Well, there aren't any Catholic colleges and universities that cover contraceptives on their insurance plans.  Oh, wait, DePaul, the largest one, does, and it's hardly the only one?

Medicare D plans typically offer three levels of meds - generic, preferred brands, and premium brands.  My carrier hates Benicar, a blood-pressure drug, because it's expensive, and they haven't negotiated a kickback from the manufacturer, but my doctor says Benicar works better for me, so they charge me a fortune for it, but they are mandated to cover it. 

Obamacare should require that all plans cover all prescription drugs, period.  My stepdaughter took The Pill for years, not to avoid pregnancy (she complained bitterly that she didn't have guys asking for dates), but to make her periods regular.  The whole issue is a bunch of hooey.  And my wife insists that she didn't tell me to write this or face the consequences.

 

Quantcast