Daily Archives: 2 July 2013

Government and Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) signed a bill last week penalizing those who publish the names of individuals who own or have applied for a concealed handgun permit with potential jail sentences of six months and fines of $10,000.

An identity may only be released if a concealed handgun carrier is charged with a felony offense involving the use of a firearm.

The Advocate Editor Peter Kovacs doesn’t get it.   He insists there’s no place for such legislation; his protest is typical of the NLMSM.  Indeed, the NLMSM’s general condoning of The Journal News‘ publication of the names and addresses of New York area gun owners—mostly plainly demonstrated by NLMSM silence on the matter—demonstrates that the press generally cannot be trusted to respect individual privacy.

Jindal was clear in his defense of the law:

In the face of an administration in Washington that wants to take away the rights of law-abiding gun owners, we are standing up for the Second Amendment and the Constitution of the United States here in Louisiana.

We are building on the work we’ve done to protect the rights of Louisianians while also implementing common-sense gun safety measures[.]

The principle is plain and simple: nor government nor the press get to invade citizens’ privacy just because they’re curious or want to sell newspapers.  Only the self-serving and self-important have a problem here.

Mandates and Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that HHS’ original rule regarding contraceptive coverage by “insurance” companies

exempted churches and other houses of worship, but required faith-affiliated charities, universities and other nonprofits to provide the coverage for their employees.

HHS’ finalized rule, which they claim is an outstanding compromise,

simplified the definition of religious organizations that are fully exempt from the requirement.  The change means a church that also ran a soup kitchen would not have to comply.

But “faith-affiliated charities, universities and other nonprofits” still are required to provide the contraceptive coverage.  Moreover,

religious nonprofits must notify their insurance company that they object to birth control coverage.  The insurer or administrator of the plan will then notify affected employees separately that coverage will be provided at no cost.  The insurers would be reimbursed by a credit against fees owed the government.

Of course, HHS omits to say to whom there is no cost.  It’s also unclear what happens in the event there are more credits than fees.  Who pays the difference?  In either event, it seems clear to me, it’s the taxpayers—and the “insurers’ ” customers—who pay.

Eric Rassbach, of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, has pointed out

As we said when the proposed rule was issued, this doesn’t solve the religious conscience problem because it still makes our non-profit clients the gatekeepers to abortion and provides no protection to religious businesses[.]

Michael Hash, Director of the HHS Office of Health Reform, demurs from that description.  Faith-based groups, says he, were given another reprieve, until 1 Jan, to comply.

But they still have to comply—screw ’em.

Here is an impact of capricious Federal regulation (apologies for the redundancy) on individual liberty.