Democrat Admits Obama Administration is Ignoring Constitution
Senate to Vote on Conscience Protection Tomorrow
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
Krauthammer Explains ObamaCare vs. The Constitution
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.
ICYMI: Contrary to Liberal Myth, Women Testify Against the Assault on Conscience Protections
Federal Court Protects Economic Liberty in HealthCare
Thank You Charles Krauthammer
DeMint Weighs In on Religious Tyranny of Contraception Rule
Reaction to the President's "Compromise" on His Contraceptive Policy
The Contraception "Compromise" is No Compromise Guide for Dummy's
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
Senate Democrats Block Effort to Preserve Conscience Protections
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
Recent Posts
- Bob Beauprez on ObamaCare's Disastrous Health Care Tax Credit
- ObamaCare Won't Work (Even if the Court Upholds the Law)
- ObamaCare Eliminates an Important Market-Based Aspect of Medicare Part D
- Beware the Misleading Politicalization of Health Care
- House Questions Obama Admin For Using Taxpayer Money to Push ObamaCare
- Government Can Lead by Getting Out of the Way
- ObamaCare's Job Killing Tax on Innovation
- How The Sale of Insurance Across State Lines Would Work
- The Coming Government Price Controls Under ObamaCare
- The Future of Health Care Innovation
Tags
- AAA (3)
- Abortion (18)
- Alabama (81)
- Alaska (82)
- Arizona (84)
- Arkansas (74)
- Bureaucracy (9)
- California (81)
- CHIP (Children’s Health) (7)
- CLASS Act (13)
- Colorado (78)
- Compacts (20)
- Comparison to other nations (3)
- Congressional Budget Office (47)
- Congressional Oversight (58)
- Connecticut (68)
- DC (67)
- Delaware (68)
- Elena Kagen (10)
- Exchanges (18)
- Expanded Bureaucracy (36)
- Federal Budget Impact (52)
- Federal Spending (36)
- Florida (90)
- Free Market (35)
- Georgia (79)
- Hawaii (67)
- HHS (39)
- HSAs (12)
- Idaho (77)
- Illinois (70)
- Impact on Consumers (92)
- In the States (60)
- Indiana (80)
- Individual Mandate (58)
- Innovation (9)
- Iowa (73)
- IPAB (10)
- Kansas (78)
- Kentucky (71)
- Lawsuits (65)
- Losing Coverage (38)
- Louisiana (81)
- Maine (77)
- Maryland (69)
- Massachusetts (76)
- Media (8)
- Medicaid (65)
- Medicare (72)
- Michigan (90)
- Mini-Med Plans (10)
- Minnesota (70)
- Mississippi (77)
- Missouri (76)
- Montana (72)
- Nebraska (79)
- Nevada (80)
- New Hampshire (72)
- New Jersey (72)
- New Mexico (69)
- New York (73)
- North Carolina (71)
- North Dakota (78)
- ObamaCare Implementation (247)
- Ohio (79)
- Oklahoma (84)
- Oregon (69)
- Pennsylvania (79)
- Polling/Public Opinion (19)
- Prescription Drugs (11)
- Price Controls (4)
- Rationing (5)
- Regulations (34)
- Repeal (54)
- Rhode Island (69)
- Seniors (19)
- Socialized Medicine (11)
- South Carolina (79)
- South Dakota (75)
- State Budget Impact (21)
- Tax Burden (25)
- Taxes (41)
- Tennessee (78)
- Texas (91)
- Utah (80)
- Vermont (70)
- Virginia (79)
- Waivers (21)
- Washington (77)
- West Virginia (68)
- Wisconsin (82)
- Wyoming (84)




You can reach our