Looks like the Obama Administration has responded to objections to it’s anti-religious liberty HHS mandate by expanding its reach:
In a move that is likely to reignite the ire of religious leaders, late Friday afternoon the Obama administration announced a proposal that would require universities, including religious universities, to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to their students, as well as their employees, without a co-pay. This appears to significantly widen the originally-announced HHS mandate, which had only applied to employees.
They’re showing utter contempt for the 1st Amendment rights of the American people, and now doubling down on the offense. And this after announcing they would seek accommodation and compromise on the issue. The raw cynicism of this administration is just breath-taking.
Another great read from Mark Steyn today at National Review Online:
The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius, and many others believe in one-size-fits-all national government — uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment — and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.
Via Politics Daily:
On the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, President Obama said Saturday he is committed to protecting what he considers a fundamental principle: “government should not intrude on private family matters.”
Obama, in a brief statement marking the 1973 Supreme Court opinion, said he also remains committed “to policies, initiatives and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”
Quick, can anyone spot the contradiction in those two statements? The obvious contradiction seems to have evaded the Smartest President Ever.
Additionally, doesn’t Obama know that the Supreme Court is part of the government?
And finally, the assertion that the “government should not intrude on private family matters” is awfully rich coming from the guy whose signature achievement includes forcing every family in America to buy a government mandated health insurance policy, whether they want one or not.
No, the idea that Obama and the majority of his party don’t want the government to “intrude on private family matters” is obviously complete bunk. They don’t want any legislation that restricts in any way a woman’s ability to have an abortion at any point during her pregnancy, that’s what they want. They’re all for intrusion if it means government helping to fund abortions. They’re all for government intrusion into any other area of human existence. This is just one more example of President Obama saying whatever he thinks will sound good in a speech.
Via Yahoo Finance:
The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red. The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately.
This is just one more example of the total fraud and gimmickry that make up Obamacare. This is like saying that if I have a $300 per month car payment, it will be cheaper if I send two checks for $150 each. It’s a total scam. This is the kind of financial trickery that people in the private sector go to jail for.
At a rally today in Ohio pushing for his planned health care takeover, President Obama said:
“…this proposal would make preventive care free so you don’t have to pay out-of-pocket for tests that keep you healthy.”
Does the president, who is known for saying anything to make a point without regard for the facts, really believe that, or does he know it’s ridiculous, but is saying it anyway? Which is the scarier proposition?
From KCBS radio in California (via Michelle Malkin):
A key legislative committee in California revived a bill Thursday to create a government-run health care system in the nation’s most populous state, two days after Massachusetts elected a senator who opposes the president’s national health care plan.
The Senate Appropriations Committee released the bill for a vote by the full Senate next week. The legislation had been held over from last year because of the state’s ongoing budget crisis.
So that must mean the “ongoing budget crisis” is over, time for another bloated government entitlement from the CA legislature!
[State Senator Mark] Leno said the system could be funded with a payroll tax along with existing state and federal money and increased efficiencies from a state-managed system …
Oh yes, because we all know how efficient state-managed systems tend to be. And increasing payroll taxes sure will help the state’s unemployment rate, which is higher than the national rate of 10 percent.
But this plan has at least one advantage over the proposed “health care reform” bills being debated in Congress – it will be inflicted on only one state rather than on the entire nation. This is the beauty of federalism, and one more reason to defeat ObamaCare.
Senator Kent Conrad was on Fox News Sunday this morning, and essentially said that the “deal” (taxpayer-funded bribe) to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is a sham, “without a whole lot of meaning”.
Via The Hill:
“No Congress can bind a future Congress” to expand Nebraska’s Medicaid deal past 2016, when expansion in other states would run out, Conrad said.
Which is of course correct. But it also shows what a cheap date Ben Nelson is. His vote was purchased essentially for nothing but an empty promise. Harry Reid promised Nelson something that both know cannot be delivered, and Nelson sold his vote any way.
It’s all just more evidence the Democrats don’t care what’s in the bill, they only care about the political task of passing something. Think about what an utter disgrace that is – they’re willing to pass almost any bill, with little regard to what’s in it, which will affect every American, purely for political reasons. And there isn’t one single Democrat in the entire Senate who’s willing to stand up and say no to this disgrace.
…or pharmacists actually:
I HAVE A LIBERTARIAN SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM: Over at The Corner we’re seeing a rather large number of abortion-related posts today. In this one (which really goes beyond the abortion issue) Kathryn Jean Lopez decries a poll showing that 80% of Americans think that pharmacists ought to have to fill prescriptions for contraceptives even if they’re personally opposed to birth control.
Of course, this only matters because pharmacists enjoy a government-created monopoly on the dispensing of prescription drugs. Just take that away, and the problem disappears, too. In the meantime, like others who enjoy government monopolies, they are forced to make some concessions to public convenience. That doesn’t strike me as an overwhelming imposition, but if the pharmacy profession feels otherwise, I’ll be the first to support a move to eliminate its privileged position.
But his comment makes no sense. The issue of whether an individual pharmacist should be free to follow his conscience has nothing to do with the fact that only pharmacists can dispense prescription drugs. Besides, Reynolds doesn’t explain how being denied the purchase of a non-prescription drug from a non-regulated seller would be any better from the perspective of the buyer.
He’s grossly abusing the term “monopoly” as well. Is the practice of law a monopoly because one must be a member of the bar to practice? Having standards for training to practice a profession does not make a monopoly.
Would Mr. Reynolds hold that anyone should be allowed to practice law, without going to law school or passing a bar exam? Would Mr. Reynolds hold that because lawyers are subject to these requirements, they must take every potential client that walks in their door? Or does he think lawyers should be free to choose which cases they’ll take?
Which would most Americans consider a better society – one where an individual pharmacist is free to follow his conscience in a particular circumstance, or a Libertarian one where any regulation is too much? You want totally unregulated trade in dispensing drugs? How about a crack house across the street from your kid’s elementary school? Who are we to judge? No wonder Libertarians do so poorly in every election.
What’s notable about the issue is the hypocrisy of people who call themselves “pro-choice” denying choice to people who are pharmacists. A person doesn’t lose all of his freedoms simply because he works in a regulated profession. The interests really at odds here are the inconvenience of a buyer having to drive to a different pharmacy, versus forcing a pharmacist to violate his deeply held moral values. The former is clearly less of an imposition than the latter.
Professor Bainbridge predicts socialized healthcare is coming to America:
I predict that the next time a universal single payer plan gets to the policy table, however, that business will be first in line to back it. When you read interviews like the one Rick Wagoner gave the Journal, one can but conclude that business is itching to shift health care costs off their books and onto the American taxpayer.
We’ve already got it for older people and lower income people. What’s the argument against it at this point? We’d argue that it’s unconstitutional and contrary to the American ideal of federalism, but that argument seems unlikely to fly with the American people at this point. So what stands in the way? The average voter doesn’t see Medicare for their grandma as a bad thing, so why not Medicare for people of all ages? We fear the professor is right.