Category Archives: rights

Some Thoughts on Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

The Archdiocese of New York, headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan; the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl; the University of Notre Dame; and 40 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing the Obama administration for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The problem, as described on the DC Archdiocese’s new Web site PreserveReligiousFreedom.org, is this:

It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs.

President Obama’s Health and Human Service’s mandate, which is intended to facilitate his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and is the proximate object of the suit, forces religious organizations, against their most fundamental beliefs, to provide access to, or to make access available through their insurance programs, contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures.

These drugs and services, and many of the behaviors that “need” these drugs and services, are held by a host of religions (Catholicism and Baptist congregations are only the most well-known) to be sinful.  It is, then, not only morally wrong for a religious entity holding these beliefs to provide these things, it is impossible for that entity that is true to its beliefs to do so, or to wink at their insurance programs that do so.

Take careful note: this problem is not about whether such things are, in fact, sinful.  This problem is not about whether Catholic women, by regularly going to Mass and then to their neighborhood pharmacy for contraceptives, seemingly give the lie to Catholicism’s position.  (Indeed, the existence of sin is a raison d’être for churches of all types—to help those sinners.)  This problem is not about “free” access to these services. (In fact, they are not free: by the government’s mandate, if the recipient isn’t paying for them, you and I are—whether it violates our religious teachings or not—through higher prices to us to pay for the subsidy.)

No, this problem is about whether government can define for religious entities what is sin.  It is about whether government can dictate to a religious entity what its religious tenets are.  It is about whether government can dictate to a religious entity what its practices in furtherance of its fundamental tenets are.  It is about whether government can dictate to us individually what our beliefs, what our private decisions, must be, and whether we must sin at government’s behest.

As a practical matter, which patients are being “protected” under the Act of that name?  Plainly only those of whom Obama approves.  Certainly not those with beliefs with which he disagrees.

As a matter of freedom, what is being protected by this government diktat?  Certainly not the fundamental freedom of conscience that Christian religions teach.  Certainly not the fundamental freedom of religion—a part of our Creator’s endowment—that is codified in our Constitution.

Some Government Health Mandate Fallout

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama  insists, in response to religious organizations’ concerns, that the costs of birth control coverage can simply be shifted to insurance companies for those organizations with religious objections. This, though, simply demonstrates Obama’s cynicism.  The costs are far more than those of mere money.  The costs are moral, and shifting pecuniary costs to others (itself an egregious immorality) has no impact on this.

Some organizations recognize this moral cynicism and are demonstrating the courage of their convictions.  Vice President of Advancement at Franciscan University in Steubensville, OH, Mike Hernon told Fox News

We couldn’t believe the price (increase).  We had [their insurance company] go back and reconfirm it.  They said it was dictated by coverage limits that were released by the Obama administration.

The university had been excluding contraceptive services and related medications from its health insurance programs for its students.  The price increase that so shocked Hernon was a tripling: from $600 per year per student to $1200 for the fall semester and to $1800 the following year.  A large part of this increase was driven by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandate that the coverage available be increased to $100,000 for the students—for coverages that students don’t need.

As a result of the cost and of the moral violation the PPACA mandates demand, Franciscan University will be dropping its student health insurance coverage altogether.  This school cannot take part in a plan that

requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.

Hernon added that

This is putting people in a position where they are having to choose between their faith and their morality, and now an unjust cost.  These sorts of regulations from the government are forcing our hand in a way that’s really wrong. … At the end of the day, it’s the students who are hurt by this[.]

Franciscan University’s complete statement on the matter can be found here.

They’re not alone.  Ava Maria University, a private university in Florida is considering taking the same step for the same reasons.  University President James Towey says

My own sense is, I don’t see…how it makes sense for us to stay in this.

Towey noted that Ava Maria is looking at a cost increase of 65% – 85% from their current insurer.  He tried shopping the coverage, but other major insurers “wouldn’t even give us a quote.”

Do it my way, insists Obama.  Your moral objections don’t matter.  And never mind the cost, just pony up.  But this just demonstrates the failures: Obama not only is terrified of a free market in goods and services—dependency on government isn’t needed in such an economy.  But he’s also terrified of a free market in ideas.

Update: On Monday, Ave Maria University decided to go through with discontinuing its student health insurance plan.  University President James Towey said in a written statement

It is a sad day when Ave Maria’s students are forced to choose between enrolling in a health insurance plan that is both costly and offers morally objectionable benefits, and having no coverage at all.

The Berlin Wall

Posted on by
Reply

…comes to the United States, courtesy of the Progressives.

Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Bob Casey (PA) are proposing an Ex-PATRIOT Act, which would impose a mandatory 30% tax on American investments for those who renounce their citizenship, and it would prohibit their re-entry into the US.  Moreover, this Progressive law would apply to individuals with a net worth of over $2 million or an average income tax liability of at least $148,000.

Thus it would apply to ordinary small business owners—middle class Americans.  This is a barrier intended solely to prevent Americans from leaving.

A fiscal Berlin Wall.

And they intend to make it retroactive to 10 years ago.  Never mind constitutional injunctions against laws that impact people before they were passed.  That also doesn’t matter to Progressives, because, after all, the Constitution is more than 100 years old, hard to understand, and not binding on anything, anyway.

This is the government Progressives want us to live under for the next four years to forever.

Affirmative Action Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote recently about the nature of affirmative action.

Here’s another take, from Victor Davis Hanson in an article in Townhall last week.

In the last 50 years, massive immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America, coupled with rapid rates of integration and intermarriage, have created a truly multiracial society.  So-called whites, for example, are now a minority of the population in California, and millions of people of mixed ancestry don’t identify with any particular ethnic group.

…

Nor is race sure proof of either poverty or past oppression.  Asian Americans, for example, have a median family income more than $10,000 a year higher than white Americans.  And if pigmentation is proof of ongoing prejudice, why don’t darker Punjabis and Arabs—who do not qualify for special racial preferences—deserve consideration over those lighter-skinned minorities who do?

…

In truth, after a half-century in our self-created racial labyrinth, no one quite knows who qualifies as an oppressed victim or why—only that the more one can change a name or emphasize lineage, the better the careerist edge.  The real worry is that soon we will have so many recompense-seeking victims that we will run out of concession-granting oppressors.

Because, after all, such programs have been fatally dishonest from their inception:

…a supposedly noble lie—that to atone for past bias we must be judged by the color of our skin rather than the content of our character….

Some Thoughts on Affirmative Action

Posted on by
1

Do affirmative action programs accomplish anything in the direction of “fairness?”  No, these programs are, by their nature, racist and sexist.  Such programs do no more than perpetuate the myths that some groups are more equal than others, and that other groups are less equal than some.  How very Wilsonian:

segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.

What are affirmative action programs but a holding apart of some groups from others—segregation?  This holding apart is founded on the gravest of bigoted insults: some groups simply are unable to do for themselves, and so they must have special treatment from Big Government.  This is baser than the simple, honest hatred of most bigotry: it’s the insidiously velvet-gloved slur of low expectations.

Moreover, these programs deny their victims a fundamental aspect of their Americanism, much less of their humanity: their individuality and their individual responsibility.  Those who are the targets of affirmative action are lumped into groups assumed to be so inferior that they must have handouts; such targets are denied their opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits, they are denied their opportunity to show the best that is in them.

Worse, such targets are denied such capacity in perpetuity: they are made dependent on government as surely and as thoroughly as the administrators of such programs and the politicians who create them are made dependent on these dependencies.

The failures go on.  The targets of affirmative action, even in those cases where they’re allowed to leave behind the preferences, are denied the full pleasure of their efforts.  Anyone who has ever received a scholarship, or a job, or any other success as a result of affirmative action cannot fully enjoy that success: did he earn it, or was he the right color, the right ethnicity, the right gender; did he merely satisfy the right affirmative action criterion?  Our own president is reduced to bragging about having benefitted from affirmative action programs, including possibly having gotten his position on the Harvard Law Review as a result of affirmative action.

In the end, how can we achieve a full integration of all comers into our society, into what it is that is an American, when we continue to hold significant portions of our fellows apart through deliberate special treatment based, not on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin or the chromosomes of their gender?  Where is the morality of such segregation, of this denial of another’s right and obligation to see to his own responsibilities and to make his own way in our common world?  How is this fair by any stretch of that term?