Barbara Boxer: Right to Insurance Trumps Religious Freedom
by Steven Ertelt
Barbara Boxer, the leading pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate, made some comments in a recent MSNBC interview that are sparking outrage across the Internet today. Boxer essentially says the right to insurance trumps religious rights and freedoms.
The comments came during an interview concerning the controversial mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place recently requiring religious groups to pay for insurance coverage for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.
As the Washington Examiner reports:
Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured.
On MSNBC’s Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced by the government to pay for medical practices against his religion.
“I mean, are they serious? Sharpton exclaimed, “How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?”
“Oh Absolutely,” Boxer said, “Let’s use an example, let’s say somebody believes that medicine doesn’t cure anybody of a disease but prayer does and then they decide no medicine.
“No medicine!” she exclaimed, “Under the Blunt amendment, they could do just that.”
The new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs is so offensive more than 50 members of Congress will speak out against it today.
Congressman Jeff Fortenberry will hold a press conference today with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Related Links Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate
The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate. This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage.
The press conference comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to vote soon, possibly as early as today, on an amendment that would stop the mandate President Barack Obama put in place to force religious groups to pay for insurance coverage that includes birth control and abortion-causing drugs.
Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs.
Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.
Congress will do what it can to fight back, starting this week, as pro-life Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, puts together a hearing on conscience rights.
“If this is what the President is willing to do in a tough election year, imagine what he will do in implementing the rest of his health care law after the election,” Issa said.
Rep. Dan Lipinski, a pro-life Illinois Democrat, and a host of Republicans from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), will hold a hearing entitled, “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” on Thursday, February 16th at 9:30AM in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.
On Thursday, Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and others offered Amendment #1520 to ensure Obamacare cannot be used to force health plan issuers or healthcare providers to furnish insurance coverage for drugs, devices, and services contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat, blocked the amendment.
Leading pro-life groups, including Americans United for Life, are urging support for the Amendment, which could be added to another piece of legislation.
“The Obama Administration continued its unprecedented attack on Americans’ freedom of conscience by refusing to reverse its mandate that nearly all insurance plans must provide full coverage of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved “contraception,” including the abortion-inducing drug ella,” the organization said in an action alert to its members. “We must urge the Senate to protect Americans’ freedom of conscience by supporting Amendment #1520, which would protect the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage that is consistent with one’s religious beliefs and moral convictions.”
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.
Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.
Bishops across the country have spoken out against the original mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit.
“We cannot — we will not comply with this unjust law,” said the letter from Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. “People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.”
The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”
The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.
The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.
The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
Poster Comment:
Now we know where a few people on here get their justification for implementing ObozoCare!!!
Where is that right listed in the US Constitution?
Are you saying we are only allowed to have the rights directly listed in the constitutions?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
OK. The US Gov't gets out of the Health Care bizness.
Starting with making ANY HMO and Other Corporation Unconstitutional.
You first.
What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives the federal government authority to involve itself in the health care of it's citizens in the first place?
f you can't or wont address what I ACTUALLY said, why bother to respond?
We know that health care is not a listed right in the US Constitution. Can either of you tell me where it is even insinuated?
If we have rights other than those directly listed in the Constitution, why would it matter?
Then why did you ask the question? But a god given right covers lots of territory especially when the constitution explicitly mentions the 'general welfare'.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
What Article, Section or Clause in the US Constitution gives the federal government authority to involve itself in the health care of it's citizens in the first place?
The Preamble.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Do you know the difference between "provide for" and "promote"?
Health Care is not a right and you have yet to show me how it is.
You have the right to purchase health insurance...you don't have the right to have the government steal money from me and buy it for you...understand the concept?
You have the right to purchase health insurance...you don't have the right to have the government steal money from me and buy it for you...understand the concept?
Yet it's okay to have them do the same to provide a militia for defense? Or do you guys want to go back to the good old days of those wonderful feudal mercenary armies?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Do you know the difference between "provide for" and "promote"?
The 'free msrket' has failed in it's ability to provide the means 'to promote the general welfare'.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Defense of the country is one of the very few stated functions of the federal government. I'm not responsible for your housing, food, clothing, safety or welfare ...nor should I be. I'm assuming you're an adult.
Yes, because the militia, for the common defense, is listed in the US Constitution.
Multiple times.
Tell me how you keep the soldiers healthy if you don't have a system that promotes general welfare? Oh that's right! They are special citizens with special rights and one is their very own right to healthcare.
No where in the constitution does it mention a caste system of special rights for certain categories of citizens.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Defense of the country is one of the very few stated functions of the federal government. I'm not responsible for your housing, food, clothing, safety or welfare ...nor should I be. I'm assuming you're an adult.
Actually the only department mentioned in the constitution is the Post Office.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Why do you feel entilted to the fruits of another persons labors? Is that not the very diffinition of slavery?
Why do you feel certain citizens are deserving of rights not accorded to the rest of us?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Tell me how you keep the soldiers healthy if you don't have a system that promotes general welfare? Oh that's right! They are special citizens with special rights
No, they hold a job with paid health care as part of their benefits package.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
No, they hold a job with paid health care as part of their benefits package.
Really... so why do they get it for the rest of their lives, even after they leave that employment. Which usually occurs at a fairly young age?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Is it possible to sustain a healthy economy with a sickly workforce?
Henry Kaiser didn't think so.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
No, they hold a job with paid health care as part of their benefits package.
Really... so why do they get it for the rest of their lives, even after they leave that employment. Which usually occurs at a fairly young age?
Because that is the deal that your government offers.
If you want free health care, join the military.
Want to hear something really crazy? I was in the military, yet I have never been to a VA hospital or received any kind of government paid health care.
Is it possible that you two will stop putting forth your opinions and show me how or where health care is a right?
Is it possible for you to stop whining about other posters here? I already told you it was in the Preamble.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Because that is the deal that your government offers.
If you want free health care, join the military.
Want to hear something really crazy? I was in the military, yet I have never been to a VA hospital or received any kind of government paid health care.
It's nice to know you think certain special citizens, of which you are one, should have certain guaranteed lifetime rights. Whether you use them or not is immaterial.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
It's nice to know you think certain special citizens, of which you are one, should have certain guaranteed lifetime rights.
LOL!
I don't think that, and I have not stated that I think that.
Simply because your government OFFERS free (and sucky, just ask any vet) health care for veterans doesn't mean that I think they are special citizens, or that they are deserving of any special rights, OR that I believe that health care is a right of veterans.
Why do you make this stuff up and attribute it to me?
Is it possible for you to stop whining about other posters here? I already told you it was in the Preamble.
It is also in Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...
Anyone claiming to be an expert is selling something. I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. Aaron Bady
It's nice to know you think certain special citizens, of which you are one, should have certain guaranteed lifetime rights. Whether you use them or not is immaterial.
I've never been a vet and I don't get the benefits...I understand that...why don't you?
part of the employment package and benefits...you want those benefits...go join the military
The military has never open to all who would like to join.
And for most of it's existence it excluded women from all but some support and positions in nursing for which it required a BSN.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#37. To: freedomsnotfree, We the People (#35)(Edited)
I've never been a vet and I don't get the benefits...I understand that...why don't you?
Unless you are We The People I wasn't posting that to you.
But no, I don't understand the concept of a special citizen class that has it's own health care system especially dedicated and restricted to those certain citizens and even certain non citizens. And that sure wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. You do understand that don't you?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
There are much better arguments than the preamble, that ARE listed in the Constitution, but I'm not going to present them for you.
So you admit it's in the Constitution.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...
Very good!
And here is part of what Madison says in Federalist 41:
It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.” But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.........
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare?
The powers conferred in Article 1, Section 8, are enumerated after the general opening statement, and strangely enough, no mention of welfare payments or free health care is found.
nice try...that's certainly NOT the case now, and hasn't been for decades. You never answered my question...why do you feel entitled to the fruits of another persons labor?That's called slavery... or, is that OK with you because you are on the receiving end?
