Reader responds to Obamacare editorial
To the editor:
I was infuriated after reading WKH HGLWRULDO “:RPHn BHnHfiWed.” I am frankly appalled at the journalistic misrepresentations which so often appear to paint the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act (Obmacare) with the bright colors they do not deserve.
The article referenced was replete with misrepresentations, to put it mildly, of the impact of Obmacare to the freedom of religion and religious expression. This issue is not just Roman Catholic as the article would have you believe, but has aroused many other religious denominations and organizations because it is such a blatant and direct affront to the First Amendment. Obamacare is a law Congress made that prohibits the free exercise of the religious values of many if not all religions in this country. HRw PXFK PRUH flDJUDnW FDn you get?
To set the record straight, here are the assertions and the facts:
Assertion: Obama provided a compromise that religious organizations do not have to directly provide insurance for contraceptives or abortions.
Fact 1: This does nothing because they are still not at liberty to choose a plan that does not provide such coverage. If they pay for it they are providing it. Furthermore, many religious organizations are self-insured so there is no indirect option. For example, if you were adamant that you would not buy a gun for your child would it be OK if you gave the money to someone else to buy it? Does WKDW FRnflLFW wLWK yRXU SULnciples?
Fact 2: This so-called compromise does not address the Catholic Church’s need to be free to practice its religious beliefs by not providing contraceptive or abortion services through any of its health services or hospitals.
Assertion: Many Roman Catholic women use contraceptives.
Fact: Although that can be said, they do so in opposition to the religious teachings of the Catholic Church. Many people drive through stop signs and break the speed limit. Does that mean that the government does not have the right to enforce those laws?
Assertion: The Catholic Church acts as though women are being forced to use contraceptives as opposed to being given access to it.
Fact: There has never been any such allusion. It is blatantly false that women are not being given access to birth control but only who pays for it. How can any author say something that is so grossly false and still be considered a journalist?
Additional fact: The Catholic Church leadership had spoken to the Obama administration and had been given assurances that there would be no provisions forcing the church to provide such services. So much for the integrity of this president and his administration.
This article creates the illu- sion that it is extremely important to have this provision in health insurance for all as has been the mantra of the Democrat party. In reality it is a pandering ruse. This has been debunked completely since there are many programs to provide contraception to women at little or no cost and it was determined that it can be obtained at Walmart for about $9 a month. I am sure that there is virtually no one who cannot afford the price of a pizza once a month.
The Catholic Church would not have taken on the whole federal government for some frivolous reason. Frankly this issue is such a direct affront to the First Amendment that anyone who professes that it is otherwise either has no idea what the Constitution says or is playing politics at the expense of the integrity of our whole system of government.
Vince Laurelli Huntingdon Valley