Affordable Care Act tramples “religious freedom” in America

Religious freedom is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion with President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

The First Amendment was just defended by the president on Religious Freedom Day this year when he wrote, “Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution.”

However, prosecution must be acceptable, since the White House has been arguing in court that religious employers and thousands of religious institutions, such as church operated schools and social services, must violate their religious conscience by offering “free” abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization when providing insurance for their workers.

Religious conscience is defined as the inner sense of what is right and wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward the right action. The Affordable Care Act tramples the very core of religious freedom by mandating that an individual must act against the teachings of their faith.


Religious Freedom Day commemorates the anniversary of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the state assembly in 1786.

Jefferson wrote that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.”

Unburdened by Jefferson’s view, the ACA anti-conscience mandate has a narrow religious exemption that applies only to formal houses of worship. The mandate allows government to determine what defines a religion, who can exercise it, and where they can exercise it.

Countless other religious employers, such as universities, hospitals, charitable organizations, and other non-profits will be forced to provide coverage for the mandated services, despite their moral or religious objections – simply because they step outside the four walls of their church to serve others of different faiths.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, President of the U.S. Conference of Bishops wrote in a statement released by the bishops conference, “These ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches.”

“The government would require all employees in our ‘accommodated’ ministries to have the illicit coverage – they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children,” he said. That would directly affect both the Catholics and non-Catholics to fund procedures and medicines, which their faith does not allow.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, explained the significance of the Administration’s mandate and its impact on those institutions, remarking that, “For the first time in this country’s history, the government’s new definition of religious institutions suggests that some of the very institutions that put our faith into practice–schools, hospitals, and social service organizations–are not ‘religious enough.'”

Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins said, “If the government wants to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents.”

The Administration has tried to obscure the real nature of religious objection by claiming that those with such objections want to deny contraception to women. But birth control will continue to be widely available and easily affordable.

The Illinois Appellate Court and other state courts have ruled that the state does not have the power to force pharmacists and pharmacies to stock and dispense abortion-inducing drugs in violation of their religious beliefs.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a Catholic couple who run a construction company and sought to avoid compliance with the ACA edict, which they knew was a violation of their faith. The federal court said in its ruling that the government had not justified its “substantial burden” on religious freedom.

The real and disquieting question is why would the American government try to mold everything, including religious belief, to its political will? Wouldn’t the ACA force religious organizations to essentially become instruments of the government, subservient to the state?

If our government, seeking to expand its control over American citizens, can override our religious freedom and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut their spiritual values, then the government could do the same for other Constitutional rights. There would be no limit to the government’s power.

The current administration thinks that their electoral and legislative victories vindicate their views. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution regardless of the current majority view, if America is to remain a nation of laws rather than of men.

Religious freedom compels us to ask, if America has reached a point, where being a Christian and speaking out for religious freedom is now considered unprotected speech or un-American because of beliefs based on the commandment, “Thou Shalt not Kill,” as opposed to the dictates of the current Washington administration?



  1. Catholics have premarital sex and use birth control yet you complain about religious freedom under the ACA. All hypocrisy.

    • Ted Biondo

      Steverino, it doesn’t matter what some Catholics do or say – take Nancy Pelosi for instance. That’s a diversionary tactic you use constantly. What matters is those that believe in their faith and its teachings have the freedom to practice that faith. The government has no right to force these people to act against their religious beliefs – the Constitution guarantees it!

  2. Do you support arresting rastafrians for smoking marijuana or being in possession of marijuana?

    How about the use of peyote by indians?

    How about polygamy? You ok with a man having more then one wife if that is his religious beliefs?

    How did you feel when muslims wanted to build that mosque near ground zero? No way you would speak out against that. Preventing muslims from building a mosque would certainly infringe on muslims religious rights. I think your comment on that one was outrage. Didn’t you ask who speaks for us. As if muslims weren’t us. Now someone wants to mess with your religion and you can’t stop crying. Maybe you should of thought about this before you supported infringing on other peoples religious rights.

  3. Craig Knauss

    “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”

    Well, since you brought it up, that’s exactly what Congress is doing by giving religious organizations tax exemptions. And that’s what Congress is doing by giving individuals who “donate” money to religious organizations (usually to support administrative functions) tax deductions. That means those groups pay less taxes and therefore the rest of us have to pay more to make up for revenue lost to faiths that we do not support. That infringes on MY religious freedom. But you don’t care about that, do you?

    • Ted Biondo

      Craig, the government gives all kinds of exemptions for all kinds of reasons. Have they given the exemptions to only one religion – no! The government is not establishing a religion, unless you mean Obama’s ” progressive secularist” religion all others must now follow.

  4. Anonymous

    As much as I am for religious freedom and protection from religion as well, I agree if a company has certain beliefs that they should be respected. I work for a Catholic organization in Rockford and it’s their choice not to offer me birth control, if I don’t like it I can work somewhere else. Plus there are loopholes as well, being grandfathered in etc etc.

  5. You write that “Religious conscience is defined as the inner sense of what is right and wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward the right action.” Ummm, what? You need religion to help you decide what is right and wrong? Tell that to the thousands of children molested by Catholic priests.

    As usual, Ted, you cherry-pick the pillars on which you choose to stand to make your arguments. By the same reasoning, we could use religion to justifiy just about any kind of behavior; racism, discrimination of those not like you, etc. Oh wait, plenty of religions do that already.

    Further, Craig is right. Why don’t religious groups and church pay taxes? Get them on the tax rolls just like every other organization and then they can pick and choose what kinds of health benefits they want to offer. The Catholic Church is one of America’s biggest land owners, yet pays no tax. Ridiculous.

    This whole argument that their religious freedom is being infringed shows just how out of touch most religions, particularly Catholicism, really are. About 80 percent of Catholics (according to most polls) do use or have used birth control, directly against the tenets of the church. Yet, when these huge organizations are required to provide basic health care (birth conrol is pretty basic) they jump up and down. Get with the times. The hypocrisy stinks.

    • Ted Biondo

      The times, as you say monkey, have killed 50 million human beings. Did Hitler, Stalin and the others kill more?Whatever religion progressive secularists belong to, I want no part of. You observe that one of the first things you liberals went for in this religious argument is the taxes you think you could get from the churches. There are plenty of others getting tax breaks that would come beofre faith-based organizations.

  6. Anonymous, if I owned a business and I wanted to weasel out of paying for obama care couldn’t i just claim to be a catholic? What would stop all business owners from making this claim?

    Churches and schools are exempt. The business that are not are the ones that hirer non catholics. The people who don’t share your views shouldn’t be forced to live by your rules because they work for you. These people deserve health care. It’s the law and laws are to be followed. If cathloics have such a hard time respecting the laws of this country they are free to leave. The supreme court has ruled that obama care is legal. Do you and your boy Ted understand the constitution better then the supreme court? I think not.

    • Ted Biondo

      Joe – maybe the religious business should not hire other than their own religion as employees. Should businesses be able to do that- hell no, the government would call that discrimination, but it’s okay to discriminate against a religious business. I think I remember that kind of persecution in Germany during World War II, don’t you?

  7. itsmylife

    Ted, first off you need to understand that Plan B is NOT an abortifacient.

    Then you should realize that it is YOUR paranoia that leads to statements like “seeking to expand its control over American citizens”. There is no factual basis for this statement.

    After you get those two points, contemplate the FACT that most of these Catholic institutions have FOR YEARS provided their employees with insurance that covers contraception; it was not until the copay was removed that they all got their liturgical panties in a wad.

    Finally, you need to consider whether you would rather win the battle or the war. If every employer can carve out whatever coverage he wants for religious or other reasons, then employer provided health insurance will become so worthless that the ONLY alternative will be a national health plan. Wouldn’t that result be even MORE galling to you?

  8. The Catholic community in the United States isn’t anywhere near united on this issue, contrary to the impression that some reactionary local bishops might wish to convey. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents 80% of the Catholic nuns in the U.S., supports healthcare reform as passed, and supports a number of other liberal social issues that run contrary to the expressed views of the Vatican:


    Maybe someone can ask the Pope what he thinks about this? That is, if Catholics are able to find one willing to serve.

  9. I think that smell is uncontrolled Liberalism.

    The reason that religious organizations do not pay taxes is so the government can’t use taxation as a club, to force them to submit to government policies.

    If SOME Catholics choose not to follow the Church’s teachings, they are free to be hypocrites. Forcing those who do not believe in abortion and/or birth control to pay for those services is a violation of their religious rights.

  10. The day Catholic colleges stop holding athletic events on the sabbath and keeping it holy is the day they can opt out of birth control in the ACA.

    I have never seen such idiocy. They only practive what they “believe” when it suits them.

    • Ted Biondo

      Comparing basketball games on Sunday to being forced by the government, despite the first amendment, to support killing human beings; I have no other comment for you, CRJ1.

  11. Also, “birth control” has many other medical uses in addition to the prevention of pregnancy. they have to include it on their formulary to provide care for many employees either way.

  12. Luke Fredrickson

    Ted, when a religious group wants to participate in the public marketplace by operating a business they must play by the rules that govern that marketplace. Period.

    Religious groups who employ only believers as part of their church (not business) are allowed to offer benefits that are consistent with their denominational teachings.

    Somehow you cannot grasp the very significant difference between these two types of employers.

    • Ted Biondo

      Neither can the government, Luke. So, you are saying that government now has the right to determine what is religious or not, just like I posted? Obamacare allows the government to determine if religious schools, organizations, etc. fit their definition or the government will force them to disobey the teachings of their religion. Obamacare is against both of examples you gave, even in their amended version of universal health care.

      The courts have also ruled against government forcing business owners to forego their religious freedom. Didn’t you read that part? There are many more cases than the ones referred to in the post.

      Also, there’s a difference if you and your wife want to kill your baby by abortion, but the government forcing me to pay for it, because I own a business, is a violation of the First Amendment, don’t you grasp the difference between these two scenarios?

  13. Luke Fredrickson

    Ted, the definition of a church versus a business is, of course, an appropriate role for government. One pays taxes and the other does not, correct? And the law that governs these decisions is also reviewed by the courts. Who would you have decide these points other than our freely-elected leaders and their appointed court justices?

    You should review the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which is the rule of the land governing church-operated businesses. It prohibits the federal government from imposing a “substantial burden” on a person’s “exercise of religion” unless it can prove that doing so is “the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.”

    The ACA mandate imposes an indirect burden on religious employers, who would be required only to facilitate contraception decisions made independently by their employees, and furthers a compelling need to treat common illnesses, avert unwanted pregnancies, improve maternal and child health, reduce health care costs and reduce poverty.

    Moreover, 20 states have laws similar to the contraceptive mandate and many Catholic businesses already provide birth control coverage for their employees. These facts only reinforce the limited nature of this so-called “burden”, especially considering polls show the vast majority of Catholic women already use birth control methods banned by the church.

    Don’t like the law refereced above? Well, our great nation has a built-in remedy: Convince the majority of voters to agree with you come 2016 and elect leaders who will act accordingly. I wish you good luck with that, since you’ll need it – last November revealed that the nation is becoming more and more progressive on these issues. Hallelujah.

    One last thing – you really need to break your habit of equating any perceived overreach of government authority with what the Nazis did. It trivializes the actual horror of that period and makes you appear as a knee-jerk, out-of-touch paranoic. And considering you are en elected public servant, it reflects pretty poorly on us Rockfordians too.

    • Ted Biondo

      Again Luke, you skipped the court cases, which ruled a religious individual or couple who ran nonreligious businesses could not be forced by the government to disobey their religious convictions to provide and pay for coverage of services that, as a matter of faith, they find morally objectionable, even a federal court in one case.

      It hasn’t been decided yet whether this country allows religious freedom or will thwart religious beliefs as they did in the countries, which drove the Europeans to these shores.

      I guess after a certain period of time in all countries, those who want to control people in their own image, like Obama and others in power, promise favors to enough people, keeping getting reelected and 50,000,000 murders are the result.

      However, where will Christians be able to go this time? Also, there’s nothing trivial about 50,000,000 horrible deaths in the U.S., is there?

  14. Ted your gearbox is stuck in reverse. I hope the next Pope whoever she is will bring the church into the 21st century and file as a for-profit enterprise subject to taxation.

    • Ted Biondo

      I expected nothing less from you, Steverino – attacking religious beliefs is right up your’s and Obama’s alley!

      Those who believe in choice in abortion always complaign that religious people shouldn’t force their religious views at abortion clinincs, another first amendment right, before they destroy a human life, but the progressive secularists don’t seem to mind forcing abortion and other non-religious views on those who believe abortion is abhorrent, do they?

      If the government intervention in religious beliefs continues, many religious organizations will have close down because of their beliefs, regarding abortion and same sex marriage, as Illinois tried to force Catholic Charities to do with adoptions and as the government wants religious organizations to do more and more of it’s bidding against the religious conscience.

  15. Sooooo, birth control is now, according to Ted, “killing human beings?” I love watching Ted and the wingnuts come unglued. Do you really believe the Pill “kills human beings?” I thought we were talking about birth control, not abortion.

    • Ted Biondo

      It isn’t just birth control, monkey, and you know it – ever hear of RU485 – an abortifacient? That’s part of Obamacare too.

  16. Abortion is not murder. The supreme court in 1973 with a majority vote of 7 – 2 said abortion is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. I guess Ted doesn’t respect the Constitution or the supreme court.

    “but the government forcing me to pay for it, because I own a business, is a violation of the First Amendment, don’t you grasp the difference between these two scenarios?”

    If this was true the supreme court would rule that way. But they haven’t. Sounds to me your problem isn’t with Obama but the supreme court. Or maybe you just don’t understand the constitution.

    “However, where will Christians be able to go this time?”

    You have a few choices if abortion is a deal breaker. Middle east countries share your views and countries in northern africa. You’re pretty much looking for something 3rd world. I hear they are big fans of christians in the middle east. You should go check it out sometime. Clearly you don’t enjoy being an american any longer. Our courts stink. Our president stinks. Abortion is everywhere. You need help packing?

    • Ted Biondo

      No, Joe, I’m here for the duration. The Supreme Court ruled Slavery was Ok at one time. If you keep objecting to what is wrong doesn’t mean you are not an American. Someday abortion will be illegal again.

  17. I didn’t say you weren’t american. Just sounds like you are ready to bail on this country. I was just showing you what your options are.

    How do you figure that some day abortions will be illegal again? The fact that republicans can’t drop the subject is costing them in the elections. The country is tired of the abortion talk. They are tired of old men talking about legitimate rape. Not to mention the right has had full control and they did nothing to change the current laws. The right just uses the abortion topic to rally the troops. The right uses abortion like the left uses guns. Neither side is going to change anything. They have both had their chances and did nothing.

    What I find interesting is WHO says it doesn’t matter if abortion is legal or illegal. The number of abortions won’t change. If you honestly believe abortion is murder and you want to prevent these deaths then you need to support the use of contraceptives.

    I’m interested to read in the bible wear it talks about the use on contraceptives. Can you point me in the right direction?

  18. Craig Knauss

    Ted, when you responded to me you proved me correct. It does NOT say, ““Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of ‘a’ religion…” It says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” period. That’s ANY religion. Granting tax exempt status to any religious group or all religious groups is “respecting the establishment of religion”.

    Why don’t you complain about these televangelists who are nothing more that con-artists? Why should they get tax exempt status for scamming old ladies? By doing so, the government is forcing me to subsidize scamming old ladies, which offends me. Doesn’t MY conscience count?

    • Ted Biondo

      Your conscience does count, Craig, and I have many problems with televangelists myself. I saw first-hand relatives giving them their wedding rings, after they had no money left to give.

      That said, you want to stop something immoral, you are not being forced to do something you consider immoral yourself, as with Obamacare. There is a big difference between these two scenarios.

      With Obamacare, the government is forcing people do what they consider immoral taught in their faith. That is the government infringing on THEIR rights, not getting subsidized to do something immoral – two different things.

  19. itsmylife

    Ted, I have never heard of RU485. However, as a physician, I HAVE heard of RU486. And if you were a journalist instead of a knee-jerk Obamaphobe swallowing the archbishops drivel hook line and sinker, you would know that RU486 is NOT covered.


    • Ted Biondo

      I stand corrected itsmylife – I had originally wrote in my response – the morning after pill – not RU485 or 486 in my response to a comment as you wrote, however, the material I read said that pill can also cause abortive actions.

      The quote was,

      “While most Americans were fixated on the debt ceiling debate, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took the opportunity on Monday to decree that, under Obamacare, all Americans will hereby be required to pay for other people’s birth control pills and morning-after pills — including a morning-after pill that is a close cousin of the abortion pill, RU-486. Insurers will be banned from charging recipients any co-pays, co-insurance charges, or deductibles for such pills, and the citizenry as a whole will therefore share the costs.”

      That’s where my error was made. However, these drugs being used by Catholics and others still does not change the views of the Catholic Church and many other denominations. If even one person’s religious conscience is being molded by the government, then his rights are being violated under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

      Besides state and federal courts have ruled, thus far, that Obamacare overstepped its power in this area.

  20. Ted,

    Oh really? Because it EXPRESSLY outlaws working on the sabbath day in the 10 commandments.

    “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.”

    Funny the 10 commandments never mention Plan B, birth conrtol, or abortion. This is what I mean by practicing a religion as it is convenient for you. Oh, we are not supposed to do anything on the Sabbath? But this football/basketball/concert is going to bring in MILLIONS. That is okay. Wait, we have to pay for birth control pills? It’s gonna cost how much? OUTRAGE! Religious intolerance! 1st ammendmentttttt!

    What a joke.

  21. Ted,

    Also, if you truly believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient you have to put the HUGE majority of what you define as “dead babies” on him. 50 million? If you tally up all of the miscarraiges and birth defects of unknown causes over history you are talking TENS OF BILLIONS. Oh but that is okay right, because that is part of his devine plan?

    You can believe whatever you want, but to try to deny others the right to healthcare as an employeer is you infringing on their freedoms, not the other way around.

    • Ted Biondo

      CJR1 – no one is denying others their rights to healthcare. They can buy these pills anytime they want. The government is saying that religious beliefs be damned, the employer will pay for their pills regardless of the employer’s beliefs. That’s a violation of the employer’s rights under the First Amendment and the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit has so ruled.

  22. Ted,

    So if the owner of a large private company, lets say something like Menards, was a Jehova’s witness their insurance should not be forced to pay for blood products in the case of a car accident or surgery with complications? If they happen to be a Christian scientist, they don’t have to pay for anything? How is that any different? Somehow religious ideals are applicable in the case of birth control but not in those cases?

    Also, thank you for ignoring one of the 10 commandments just like a catholic school does EVERY TIME it hosts a sporting event on the sabbath. The double-standard is astounding.

  23. @ cjr1: Not to worry, after ObamaCare mandates drive health insurance prices beyond what average people can afford, the government will supply all of our coverage.

  24. itsmylife

    SNuss and Ted, what do you say about the liklihood of a national health plan becoming the only viable option once every employer can choose not to cover whatever he feels like? Then everyone’s care will be paid for by every taxpayer, and Catholics will STILL be paying for things they disapprove of (at least they disapprove of OTHER people using contraception, even if they personally ignore the rules)?

  25. The “government health plan” is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Government waste, fraud, and incompetence drive up the cost of healthcare. If people had to actually PAY for healthcare, they would shop for coverage without all these government mandates, and pay much less. If medical providers didn’t have to pay to take care of all this bureaucratic red tape, and CYA testing, made necessary by greedy trial lawyers, they could charge less.

    For example, I know a man who came from South America to have heart surgery at a major heart surgery center. To have two valves and part of his aorta replaced cost $67,000, paid for in cash. Had this been covered by insurance, the cost would have easily exceeded $100,000.

  26. Ted. . . if you argue that one day “abortion will be illegal again,” what scenario do you see where that will happen? If the SC strikes down Roe v. Wade, that only would spin it back to the states. Many of them would, no doubt, make it illegal, but many would not. Then, you’d force women to drive across statelines to obtain an abortion. You’d also, no doubt, have an underground network of OB/GYNs who would still provide abortions. In that case, are you going to criminalize the procedure? Are you going to imprison the docs? The women who get an abortion? Describe a scenario, that’s not part of a dream sequence, where you actually see that being viable.

    Abortion is a medical procedure between a woman and her physician. You wingnuts want gov’t out of our lives, unless it’s to control a women’s body, which effectively makes her a second-class citizen subject to government control and basically set up as a baby factory. Thankfully, the generations coming up behind you don’t view women as second-class citizens and your scenario of abortion becoming illegal has no real chance. But, keep dreaming.

  27. JRM_CommonSense

    Philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote in his book “The True Believer”:

    “The fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure. He cannot generate self assurance out of his individual resources-out of his rejected self-but finds it only by clinging to whatever cause he happens to embrace. This passionate attachment is the source of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength. Through his single minded dedication is a holding on for dear life , he easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings….Still his sense of security is derived from his passionate attachment and not from the excellence of his cause. The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not because of its justness and holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold on to. Often, indeed, it is his need for passionate attachment which turns every cause he embraces into a holy cause. The fanatic cannot be weened away from his cause by an appeal to reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude of his holy cause. But he finds no difficulty in swinging suddenly and wildly from one holy cause to another. He cannot be convinced but only converted. His passionate attachment is more vital than the cause to which he is attached.”

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM, are you sure that wasn’t Eric Holder book, “Everyone must believe in Obama”?

  28. @ Itsmylife. Re: “what do you say about the liklihood of a national health plan becoming the only viable option once every employer can choose not to cover whatever he feels like? ”

    I say that such a result is exactly what the authors of ObamaCare had in mind, to destroy the private health insurance industry, and force a move to an overpriced socialist health system, run (inefficiently) by Leftist bureaucrats, who will mandate how much coverage that you are allowed (death panels).
    I have been saying that ever since ObamaCare was proposed, and it moves closer to that result, day by day.

  29. itsmylife

    A national health plan can’t come soon enough for me. However, since people like you and Ted think it would be akin to the end of the world, why do you continue to fight these overwrought (see title of article – “trampled”) battles which are very likely to lead straight to the worst (in your mind) possible outcome? I don’t understand the strategy.

    What say you, Ted?

  30. Snuss,

    You should take a look at the price the VA pays for….well anything as compared to the cost for an average community hospital. I know for drugs, they pay 60 cents on the dollar.

    A single payer system would make things very cheap very fast in many respcets.

  31. JRM_CommonSense

    No Ted, It wasn’t Eric Holder’s book. I would suggest you read the entire book I referenced before you make flip comments that you think are funny. It is the kind of person that makes that kind of flip comment that Professor Hoffer was describing in the quote I posted.

  32. Adam Faber

    Ted, I notice that you have failed to address CJR1’s point about whether you would hope to extend your advocated premise to employers who happen to be Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists. This is not the first time that you have evaded this most pertinent question. Indeed, you ignored both another reader and me when we posed this same question to you over a year ago. (http://blogs.e-rockford.com/tedbiondo/2012/01/30/catholic-church-says-it-will-not-comply-with-obama-health-care-mandate/comment-page-2/#comment-22140) By consistently ignoring this question, are you quietly acquiescing that you wish for the government to allow Catholics to impose their religion on employees but that you do not want those who follow other religions to be allowed the same privilege? That reminds me of the time you thought that only Republicans should be allowed to campaign for reelection and not Democrats (http://blogs.e-rockford.com/tedbiondo/2012/09/12/wheres-obama-during-crises-out-campaigning-of-course). Are you going to answer CJR1’s question or not?

  33. On a related note….

    “In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”-Edward Gibbon

  34. On a related note…

    Universal to drop health insurance for part-time workers (Thanks to ObamaCare)

    Universal Orlando plans to stop offering medical insurance to part-time employees beginning next year, a move the resort says has been forced by the federal government’s health-care overhaul.

    The giant theme-park resort, which generates more than $1 billion in annual revenue, began informing employees this month that it will offer health-insurance to part-timers “only until December 31, 2013.”

    The reason: Universal currently offers part-time workers a limited insurance plan that has low premiums but also caps the payout of benefits. For instance, Universal’s plan costs about $18 a week for employee-only coverage but covers only a maximum of $5,000 a year toward hospital stays. There are similar caps for other services.

    Those types of insurance plans — sometimes referred to as “mini-med” plans — will no longer be permitted under the federal Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2014, the law will prohibit insurance plans that impose annual monetary limits on essential medical care such, as hospitalization, or on overall spending.

    Read more at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-universal-part-time-insurance-20130219,0,4887679.story

    So, no insurance is better than a limited insurance policy?

  35. Ted, no one and no law is forcing anyone to use contraception. Therefore no infringement of anyone’s 1st Amnedments is happening.

    • Ted Biondo

      No Todd A., the government is forcing religious people to pay for it when it’s against their religion – that is an infringement.

  36. No Ted, the government is forcing business owners to pay for it. The fact they happen to be religious is not the governments problem. They serve the public and are held to the same rules as everyone else.

    • Ted Biondo

      Business owners have religious freedom too, Joe. They are running their own business, usually at their own expense, and their religious freedom is at stake just like the individual. As a matter of fact most small businesses are run by individuals.

  37. @Adam Faber,

    Clearly he is not, but thanks for trying to get a response! Your silence speaks volumes anyway Ted.

  38. JRM_CommonSense

    I will guarantee that Catholic business owners today do not know all of the items that are covered by their insurance plan’s drug formularies. AND therefore, they are most likely providing birth control generics to their employees with no co-pays – especially in those situation where their employees are getting their prescriptions via a mail service where most generics are a $0 co-pay.

    If they want to play this game, then all they have to do is decide to not provide insurance and then pay the penalty for not providing insurance. There is nothing in their religion that prohibits paying a fine for not providing insurance, and their cost go down quite a bit, so that problem is solved.

    But their new problem is that many of their employees, including the Catholic ones, will find jobs where their employer provides insurance. The Catholic employer will have to deal with the fact that he/she cannot attract enough qualified employees. Then they will go out of business and they are no longer having their religious freedom “trampled”.

    AND Ted, business employees have religious freedom too.

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM, employees could simply buy their own contraceptives, religious or not. AND, if a religious businessman doesn’t check his insurance’s formulary, then so be it. Those that do check should be religiously free to omit that coverage from what they pay for. The cost of birth control is not prohibitive – cut back on something else.

      Better yet, have the government set up its own little pharmacy to deal with this problem and charge people like the post office does, then none of our citizens would have to contribute to this expenditure in violation of their religious freedom!

      Quakers and conscientious objectors didn’t have to participate in the world wars, did they? That’s called religious freedom. The government today wants to dictate behaviors and is taking away more and our more of our freedoms and our money in the name of fairness and leveling the playing field.

  39. Re: “If they want to play this game, then all they have to do is decide to not provide insurance and then pay the penalty for not providing insurance. ”

    That is the intent of ObamaCare, to destroy the private insurance industry. Whether they do it by making it too costly for businesses to afford to provide, or using religious concerns, the result is the same: The Government will be in near-total control of healthcare, better-known as socialized medicine.

  40. Ted,

    How do you NOT see the difference? Your Quaker example is exactly ALL OF OUR POINTS.

    A Quaker themselves did not have to fight in wars. They DID have to pay taxes to fund those wars though. Their personal religious freedom is not violated by paying taxes to fund the war is it now Ted?

    It is exactly the same with contraception. Catholics do not have to use contraception, that is their personal religious freedom at work. They DO, however, have to fund contraception for those members of this country (or their business!) that wishes to use it in accordance with their freedom.

    Also, since you are clearly unwilling to answer my point about business owners who are members of religions in which basic, commonplace medical interventions are outlawed and how your idea would change their health plans, I will assume you have no argument with how inane your view of “religios freedom” truly is.


    You do realize a huge part of medical care costing soooo much today as opposed to 50 or 60 ears ago is insurance right?

  41. JRM_CommonSense

    So now Ted thinks it is a reasonable approach to let the Federal Government create a pharmacy and manage the acquisition and dispensing of birth control! This from a man who does not want the government messing in healthcare in any way! Maybe the business owner should find out the cost of the prescription program for the insurance they want to provide, and just add that total cost to the premiums that the employees have to pay. That way the owner is not paying for birth control, and his religious freedom is not being “trampled”.

    He also thinks it is alright for Catholics to have access to birth control as long as they pay for it. This from a man who believes it is against God’s law to practice pharmaceutical birth control, but a Catholic can break those laws as long as they pay for it. Oh sure, they will go to hell if they die with that mortal sin on their soul, but they made the choice, and paid for it, so it is their problem. Then again, they may continually go to confession and do their penance – even knowing that they will “sin” again!

    And then there is SNuss. Why would he think that because an employer “opts out” of providing insurance for their employees the entire insurance industry will collapse. If some employers make that choice, there will still be the vast majority of employers that will provide insurance and a vast majority of individuals who will buy their own insurance from insurance companies. This demnd is more than enough to guarantee that insurance comapnies as we know them today will continue. To reach the “boogie” man conclusion that SNuss has reached shows his complete lack of knowledge of the insurance industry and/or the function of demand and supply in the business world. But then, he has consistantly shown that in any discussion on the PPACA.

    • Ted Biondo

      JRM, it’s not complicated. A religious person who objects to paying for these medications in HIS business, as ruled by the courts, should be allowed to opt out to pay for or dispence this medication. It’s his business, not the governments, and they are infringing on his religious faith, period!

      Some devil worshipers in prison have requested that they be allowed to run around their cell naked and howl at the moon for their religious freedom and it has been granted. People who say it’s against their religion to cut their hair have been allowed to let it grow. The largest religion in the U.S. should be granted the same privilege to not have anything to do with killing babies!

  42. Adam Faber

    The downfall of Ted’s argument here is exposed by his refusal to answer whether he’d allow members of other religions to do the same thing he’s advocating for Catholics.

    “…I’m not going to sit and argue with you all day long on some trivial, mundane point again and again, such as your Jehovah’s Witnesses or your Christian Scientists…” (http://blogs.e-rockford.com/tedbiondo/2013/02/13/obama-needs-to-fact-check-his-state-of-the-union-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-113506)

    That’s a nice try, but this is not a “trivial, mundane point”; this is the crux of the argument. If Ted wants to allow employers of any religion to exclude coverage of anything they decide violates their religion, then employers would suddenly develop religious opposition to any expensive procedures. For example, there would be nothing to stop employers from excluding treatment of cancer. This scenario would be the death knell for employer-provided health plans and could quickly lead to voters preferring a single payer system, which Ted opposes. On the other hand, if Ted were to admit that he wants the government to allow this only for Catholics, that would violate the establishment clause. Put simply, this is an untenable position and it’s obvious why Ted is not engaging in substantive discussion about this issue but only repeating the same lines over and over.

    February 26, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    February 26, 2013 at 7:59 pm
    February 26, 2013 at 8:19 pm
    February 26, 2013 at 9:29 pm

  43. cjr1 sez: “You do realize a huge part of medical care costing soooo much today as opposed to 50 or 60 ears ago is insurance right? ”

    And how is having government run our insurance an improvement? Insurance companies have an interest in making their product as efficient and as affordable as possible, to get and keep customers. A government-run monopoly has no such incentive, and current government programs are already rife with waste and fraud. I don’t see an “up” side in this, unless you are one of the moochers, or the politicians who buy their votes with our tax dollars.

  44. Snuss,

    Yes, having a 310 million person pool of potential customers for drug companies, medical devices, etc. would have no leverage to drive down costs…..

  45. Obviously, you ignored my comment “current government programs are already rife with waste and fraud. ”

    I haven’t seen any government program LOWER costs on anything.

  46. Adam Faber

    Ted, since you assert that “[I] couldn’t punch [my] way out of a paper bag let alone holes in [your] arguments”, my most recent comment above this one demonstrates where I punched holes in your argument and succeeded handily. You were so threatened that you deleted my post that pointed out how the crux of your argument failed and I had to post it five times. FIVE TIMES!

    That you initially refused to respond and then kept deleting a comment that successfully challenged your argument is petty and childish — but it’s your tacit acknowledgement that I can destroy your arguments, isn’t it? Why else would you keep deleting a post that exposes the flaws in your argument?

  47. Adam Faber

    Ted, I see that you’re still not willing to admit that you repeatedly deleted my post where I flayed your argument so you wouldn’t get caught in such a bind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *