Obama’s Progressive View of the Bill of Rights – Beginning With the First Amendment

0
Share

 

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, disciplines or exercises. ~ Jefferson’s Letter to Rev. Mr. Millar, Jan. 23,1808 (Words of Thomas Jefferson, Vol 5, pg 236.) 

We cannot let the government infringe on the Bill of Rights. At this time, there is a movement to launch a Progress Constitution by 2020 which will make the entire Bill of Rights relative to the ideology of the left. We must be more aware of this movement which Obama is promulgating.

One of Obama’s goals in pushing this HHS rule concerning contraceptives/abortifacients could be to close the Catholic charities, universities and health facilities. Whatever his goal, he has infringed on freedom of religion and speech this past week.

The following is the letter from the scholars at the University of Notre Dame University of Law explaining their view of the non-exemption shell game presented by Obama –

Unacceptable

Today the Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.

The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.

It is certainly no compromise.

The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust.

Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance. Read here: Fox News

The following information is from the Conference of Catholic Bishops –

Fox News: We think there needs to be a legislative fix to protect our religious liberties,” Bishop William Lori, a member of the Conference, told Fox News on Saturday. “I think that our First Amendment religious rights are far too precious to be entrusted to regulatory rules.”

Lori and the rest of the Conference said they want to see the “mandate” rescinded altogether. They pointed out several lingering concerns. They said the change appears to make no consideration for religious insurers or self-insuring religious employers — or for religious for-profit employers and secular nonprofit employers.

The statement from the Conference, more broadly, expressed concern that the requirement would still facilitate contraceptive coverage even if an employer objects to it.

“And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns,” the statement said. ..

The Conference went on: “But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. … The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.”

Share