Obamacare versus individual freedom


Washington Examiner

Go to this article

Want to understand the Catholic faith?

ABSTRACTJim DeMint: Obamacare versus individual freedom | Washington Examiner Skip to main content Search form Search Opinion News Campaign 2012 Local Opinion Sports Entertainment Contests Autos Letters to the Editor Columnists Editorials Op-Eds Nate Beeler's Toons Jim DeMint: Obamacare versus individual freedom 1 month 1 week ago Comments Jim DeMint Popular in Opinion Most Read Dupes for the state The European Union ups the anti-pirate ante If Obama had a son Obama touts his record The invincible dogma Wed, 2012-02-22 13:12 President Obama's new mandate requiring all employers to purchase insurance coverage for their employees that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception is an outrage, of course. But what kind of outrage is it? Most of the public outcry has understandably centered around the mandate's assault on religious liberty. The mandate forces every businessman or nonprofit executive with religious objections to these products to buy them anyway, or pay a fine. The mandate is unconstitutional, for its violation of the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause. It is also illegal, for its violation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some of the outrage has been rightly directed specifically at the president, as both the mandate and the underlying law, Obamacare, are his doing. Indeed, many pro-life citizens and members of Congress only supported Obamacare's passage because the president assured them that conscience rights would be protected. Thus the mandate is also a personal betrayal. And some of the outrage is more practical. The Obama administration's mathematically impossible assertion that abortion drugs, sterilization and contraception will somehow now simply be "free," and thus not paid for by morally opposed insurance customers, suggests the president believes in magic. All of these affronts to the rights and intelligence of the American people are enough to warrant the criticism the new mandate has invited. The violation of conscience rights is simultaneously unconstitutional, illegal and ridiculous -- any one of which are sufficient grounds for its immediate rescission. Yet, it is still not our true cause of concern. Ultimately, the character and ideology of the president, and the particular constitutional provisions being trampled by this one mandate are incidental, compared to the manifest threat to freedom intrinsic to Obamacare itself. The problem is not how the federal government is abusing its new power in this instance, but that the government -- indeed, a single person -- suddenly wields this power at all. To many, the anti-religious freedom mandate seems like the beginning of a slippery slope. Today, the government forces us to buy abortion pills -- tomorrow they may force us to pay for euthanasia, or deny expensive treatments to the very weak or very old. However, just as frightening as the proverbial slippery slope is the proverbial seesaw. If a pro-choice liberal president can force insurance companies to cover the morning after pill, could a pro-life conservative president force them not to? Could an anti-smoking president deny coverage for lung disease? Could a president who embraced New Age, alternative medicine restrict coverage for traditional medical treatments? The danger is not that they.......