Reader re­sponds to Oba­macare ed­i­to­rial

Times Chronicle - - OPINION -

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.