Prescription for Disaster

Democrat Admits Obama Administration is Ignoring Constitution

Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Democratic U.S. Representative Kathy Hochul (NY-26) admitted to her constituents that the Obama Administration was "not looking at" the Constitution when it created the contraception mandate.

 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Senate to Vote on Conscience Protection Tomorrow

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

According to Roll Call, the United States Senate will vote on conscience protection on Thursday.  Stay tuned for more details.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Krauthammer Explains ObamaCare vs. The Constitution

Saturday, February 25, 2012
In a wonderfully written piece, Dr. Charles Krauthammer explains how ObamaCare is fundamentally at odds with the United States Constitution. Here is an excerpt from his article:

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration's regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not "religious," and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion -- no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services -- all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington's takeover of the private system of medical care -- a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under ObamaCare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control -- and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court -- because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta -- the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen -- should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

You can read the full article at TownHall.com


Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

ICYMI: Contrary to Liberal Myth, Women Testify Against the Assault on Conscience Protections

Friday, February 24, 2012
Democrats and their friends in the mainstream media are spreading a definitive lie that no women had testified at a recent House hearing in opposition to the Obama Administration's assault on conscience and religious beliefs. The myth that the Democrats are trying to perpetuate is that Republican men are trying to deny something to women and won't even let women testify on the issue. Their claim is totally false and outright dishonest.

The Heritage Foundation details how this is blatantly false and has more information.  As Allison Dabbs Garrett, senior vice president for academic affairs at Oklahoma Christian University testified: 

"This debate is not about whether women have the right to obtain these drugs. Rather, this debate is about whether those who believe that contraceptives or abortifacients violate their religious convictions must pay for them. There is a vast difference between the right to make a purchase for oneself and requiring someone else to pay for it."

She was one of several women who testified against the President's policy.

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has more information about the assault on religious freedom here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 

Bookmark and Share

Federal Court Protects Economic Liberty in HealthCare

Thursday, February 23, 2012
Yesterday, a federal court struck down a Washington state law that required pharmacies to dispense drugs such as Plan B and ella (which are widely regarded as abortifacients or abortion-inducing drugs). Several pharmacists had sued the government arguing that the state law infringed on their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. The court agreed. Read the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's press release here.

Having read many comments on this decision from people who have argued that pharmacists should be forced to violate their conscience in order to keep their jobs, I would respond thusly:

Should government have the power to tell any business what products it must sell and dictate the manner in which those products should be sold? Setting aside the idea of religious faith for a moment, do we want government to have the power to dictate the specifics of how every business has decided to serve its customers. Should a business be forced by government to spend its resources to purchase and stock  a product regardless of whether there is customer demand?  At stake here is also the principle of economic liberty and personal autonomy. A business should be free to decide what products it will choose to sell and which it will choose not to sell. 

In most cases, businesses will make those decisions based on economic principles - a profit-motive and supply and demand (both of which should be viewed as noble considerations, not vilified as seems to be common in the current political culture). But in cases where a business person is concerned about more than profit and their values lead them to make a decision that is not driven by economics and in fact may run counter to the "best" economic decision, that business owner must be free to follow the dictates of their conscience. 

Otherwise, we run the risk of letting government micro-manage every aspect of our economy, to dictate matters of supply and demand, to set prices, to govern the inventory decisions of each and every business. We have tried this in the past and with spectacular failures as a result. FDR demonized utility companies and pushed for government intervention and control - it drove America further into the depression. Nixon tried the same thing with price controls on oil and it lead to an energy crisis. 

Ultimately, government should be the last entity to make these kind of decisions. Their track record is so poor we would be better off letting each business owner make their own decisions and letting the free markets reward business. This is a far better method for allocating capital resources (and birth control) than any government mandate. 

UPDATE: Senator Jim DeMint has an excellent article in The Washington Examiner about the broader issues of ObamaCare and individual liberty. Read his commentary here.


Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Thank You Charles Krauthammer

Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Charles Krauthammer has a wonderfully written piece tackling the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration on the issue of contraception. He concludes the article, saying: 

"The contradiction is glaring, the hypocrisy breathtaking. But that’s not why Obama offered a hasty compromise on Friday. It’s because the firestorm of protest was becoming a threat to his reelection. Sure, health care, good works, and religion are important. But reelection is divine."

Read his article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

DeMint Weighs In on Religious Tyranny of Contraception Rule

Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Senator DeMint has written that the only way to protect against the tyranny of the Obama Administration's contraception rule is to repeal ObamaCare, the law by which the government is attempting to justify its power grab that violates religious (and other) freedoms.

Read his commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Reaction to the President's "Compromise" on His Contraceptive Policy

Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Americans have been rallying in opposition to the Obama Administration's contraceptive decision. The furor was great that the President held a press conference this past Friday in which he announced a "compromise." It was nothing of the sort - the President merely repackaged his original policy and tried to dupe the American people into believing otherwise. 

Here is a sample of the reaction of knowledgeable people in Washington to the President's false-compromise.

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH):
“This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs. This is not just a problem for church-affiliated hospitals and charities. Under these rules, a small business owner with religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs and contraception must either violate his religious beliefs or violate the law. The liberal Obama administration thinks its political goals trump the religious faith of American citizens. That isn’t right, fair, or constitutional.”

Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for The Becket Fund:
“This is a false ‘compromise’ designed to protect the President’s re-election chances, not to protect the right of conscience. Hundreds, if not thousands, of religious institutions are still left out in the cold and will be forced to violate their religious convictions.”

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY):
“While the White House is trying to walk away from its original mandate, one thing this debate has made perfectly clear is that the administration believes the Constitution takes a back seat to its ideological goals. They’re not sorry they violated the First Amendment....  This whole episode demonstrates why politicians should not be the ones to make determinations about religious beliefs and is just another reason why the deeply flawed health law needs to be repealed. Whether it is forcing people to buy government-chosen health insurance, or injecting Washington’s oversight into nearly every aspect of people’s lives, the Obama administration clearly believes that the Constitution is an inconvenience, not a guiding principle, in their implementation of the health law."

UPDATE:
Michael Cannon (of CATO) recaps the initial WaPo story on the President's "compromise" which details exactly how hollow the President's revised policy is. Read his post here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 

Bookmark and Share

The Contraception "Compromise" is No Compromise Guide for Dummy's

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Supporters of the President and his contraception compromise act incredulous over the fact that people with religious and moral objections to the White House contraceptive policy were not quick to embrace what the media calls a "compromise."  Harvard University economics professor, Greg Mankiw, has explained on his blog why the compromise is not a change in policy just a change in rhetoric. Semantics, if you will.

Mankiw's blog post should be easy to understand, even for the left who (AHEC hopes) is feigning ignorance that the White House's first policy and its "compromise" policy are two policies that are a distinction without a difference. Here is what Mankiw says:

"Consider these two policies:
A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.
B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

"I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.

"Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head." 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Senate Democrats Block Effort to Preserve Conscience Protections

Friday, February 10, 2012

Yesterday, Senate Democrats blocked efforts to pare back the rule issued by the Obama Administration that requires organizations to provide insurance coverage to employees that includes coverage for certain services even if that would violate a person's conscience.

You can read more here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

 
AHEC on Facebook AHEC on Twitter AHEC on Twitter

Recent Posts


Tags


Archive