The Obamacare contraceptive mandate is struck down again, and here are six reasons why.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The Obamacare contraceptive mandate is struck down again, and here are six reasons why.

At the heart of this mandate is the amazing contempt the Obama administration and the left has for religious belief:

In an astonishing display of anti-religious sentiment, the administration argued that forcing religious organizations to designate a third party to provide contraception coverage to their employees isn’t a big deal (legally: de minimis) because it’s “just a form” to fill out, “a purely administrative task.” The district court rightly found that whether a violation of religious freedom is small or large isn’t for the courts to decide. It would be too easy to simply sweep away deeply-held religious beliefs under the claim that government action is merely “de minimis” infringement of rights.

I am not religious, but I will defend to the death the right of a religious person to practice their religion freely, even when we disagree, as long as they don’t act to limit me in my beliefs. Apparently, Obama believes it is okay to trample on those beliefs if they happen to contradict things he believes in.

Share

18 comments

  • Cotour

    This again goes to the absolute subjectivity of Obama, the true believers that follow him, and all others that hold the Constitution in contempt and that it is only the vehicle that allows them to attain their purely subjective and disrespectful goals.

    Another example of the opportunistic and self serving misinterpretation of the American public by the left.

  • JWing

    What I fear most about this man and his administration is not my inability to live by Judeo-Christian moral beliefs and the rule of law, or by having to live by Obama’s moral view and rule of law;….it is the fear of there being no true rule of law and the concurrent arbitrary application of a fickle political correct behavior code at the decree of a petulant, vindictive man-child.

  • Cotour

    My overall interpretation of this current situation when it all shakes out is that these tests of the Constitution (the abuses of power by both Bush and Obama with the capitulation and aid of both party’s) is that those actions will in general strengthen the Constitution but their will be areas where we have slipped down the slippery slope and it is unclear to me where that will leave the U.S.

    In general I do not think that we should be trading freedom (the complete and unaltered Constitution) for corporate interests or profits or the fear of “terrorism”. These have become justifications for such tradeoffs. The slippery slope is defined by these two subjects today, the solution is a shade of gray and not either black nor white.

    I know that is a bit contradictory but being immersed in this does not allow one to see clearly the forest. How convenient.

  • Edward

    After WWII, the people of Belgium realized that they had unwittingly helped the NAZIs round up the Jews when they filled out simple paperwork that included the question of one’s religion. Non-Jews thought it innocent to state their religion because it was just a form to fill out, a purely administrative task, but it turned out that these responses only reduced the number of people that the NAZIs had to investigate later.

    Evil works in seemingly innocent ways. Convincing us to go along with it is its strength.

  • Pzatchok

    It helps in understanding the true meaning and original intent of the constitution if you believe in a higher power, God, or at the very least by natural law.

    Rights are given at birth and no man or government can take them away or infringe on them unless you yourself allow them to.

    True progressives don’t believe in a higher power and barely believe in natural law. Even if they go someplace and worship they do not act like believers.
    They believe rights are granted by governments and thus the men that make up those governments. Themselves especially. Never realizing that this is actually a belief in might makes right or in effect chaos.

    Unknowingly they are advocating that even their own beliefs and rights are not firm or immutable.

  • Cotour

    These are fundamental differences, a person who chooses to or has come to the conclusion that their is no God, creator or natural law of the universe is a slave in the making and is happy to drag you along with them. A true believer Marxist, communist or “progressive” is not burdened with the constraints of such trivial thoughts so is free to pervert something or someone that does recognize a God, creator or natural laws of the universe. Its the height of disrespect, arrogance and ego maniacal, self important and subjective thinking. Only trouble can come from it.

    This is the foundation of the genius of the Constitution, man and his abusive nature has been removed from the equation. Human rights do not emanate from man so man can not take them away.

    So brilliant in its simplicity, perfect logic. If you want to get around it there can be no half measures so you must destroy it and the more you try to destroy it the more aware the people become and the stronger it becomes. Its so brilliant that I am not sure the people who wrote it fully understood how it would work out over time.

  • joe

    There is one religion that the left seems to embrace and even allow in public schools, that is Islam, other than that it seems as if the only god the left believes in is government, the liberal ideology is that the government will supply their every need and that they do not have to embrace personal responsibility. the intolerant evil rightwing party is truly tolerant of ones own beliefs weather they be Christian or Muslim or any one of several dozen other religions, yet the ubber tolerant leftys will not allow you to embrace whatever religion you would like in almost any setting, so who’s who?

  • wade

    All of the obama passed Dictates have had a Clause written in them . Those open ended magistrates is what unnerves me. I was raised Lutheran but don’t worship. i have my Belief and studied Many avenues of religion. But . I don’t believe in Forcing any belief on Anyone.

  • wade

    Yes. And That is Why Christianity was spread

  • Pzatchok

    Only because its the ‘cool’ religion now.

    20 to 30 years ago it was Buddhism and anything far eastern.

    Islam is now cool only because its against Christianity and many of its practitioners are actively fighting against the western powers. Especially the US. This appeals to the Occupy type crowd.

    Let Islam take over the US and impose Sharia law and the very same people speaking against Christianity now will be crying out against Islam then. The problem is Islam could force them to keep their mouths shut and become practitioners against their will.
    Christianity is not doing that, its not forcing anyone to convert and become believers.

    Oh the anti’s think that even accidentally hearing about Christianity is tantamount to being forced to convert to it. Let them move to Iran and really see what an oppressive religious majority is like.

  • Kelly Starks

    >..Rights are given at birth and no man or government can take them away or infringe on
    > them unless you yourself allow them to. ..

    Thats not actually what the Constitution does, or was based on. Previously democracies tore themselves apart because whims and passions lead to everyone agreeing to do something stupid adn destructive to society in a emergency/popular-cause/etc. By counter balancing all interests our constitutional democracy prevents rapid degradation. So people cam stop it. Any society can choose to deny any rights, but if you moderate things people won’t support it. That’s why intellectuals and zealots (like the Obama admin) hate being limited by the law (and talk lovingly about benevolent despots). A century of effort pushing socialism in this country and they still see conservatives pushing back.

    They likely will see a huge pushback in the next couple elections. Folks get upset when you kill off grandma. ;)

  • Cotour

    To your point, the Constitution is the shield, the hardened outer shell, Americas problem is that there have been and continue to be rules and regulations created within the framework of the shield within laws that threaten every ones freedoms. These offences must be discovered and excised.

  • Pzatchok

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    I can see God and the laws of nature being mentioned here.

    Though not exactly “The Constitution” it would not have been said if they did not believe it true.
    And if they thought it true then why leave all rights derived from it out of “The Constitution” and its amendments. Which is part of of the constitution..

  • Kelly Starks

    The Constitution is pretty much focused on what limits should be placed on government. Not a outline of what else people have a right to do. Pretty much your on your own for that.

    >..I can see God and the laws of nature being mentioned here.
    > Though not exactly “The Constitution” it would not have been said if they did not believe it true…

    Several certainly didn’t beleave that, which is why it was in the preamble, not in the actual legal definitiuons. (Its just kind of a detactched PR statment.) Sort of like the intro to the secound ammendment about a well regulated Militia being necessary – is in no way part of the functional declaration of a right to be armed.

  • Kelly Starks

    The left thinks the whole Jihadi war and terrorism is due to our (mainly Bush) being to insensitive to Muslims.

    ;/

  • Edward

    The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are pretty explicit about the rights that the federal government has: only those that are laid out in the Constitution. To paraphrase, the Ninth Ammendment says that just because we listed a bunch of rights of the people does not mean that that is all there are, and the Tenth Amendment spacifies that the federal government is restricted explicitly to those rights and responsibilities listed, and all other rights and responsibilities are those of the states and We The People. All other unlisted rights.

  • Kelly Starks

    >These are fundamental differences, a person who chooses to or has come to the conclusion
    > that their is no God, creator or natural law of the universe is a slave in the making and is
    > happy to drag you along with them. ==

    Utter bigoted nonsense. Religious people have no record of having better respect for others rights, laws, freedoms (actually worse record) then non beleavers.

    > This is the foundation of the genius of the Constitution, man and his abusive nature has been
    > removed from the equation. Human rights do not emanate from man so man can not take
    > them away.

    Also nonsence. The Constitution fully allows you to modify it and add or remove rights – as has been done – but it is a big effort requiring the majority of each state to approve a change aproved by a majority of congress.

    It is NOT that the constitution wished to remove the voters nature from the structure of gov – it mearly moderated it so no whim or fad could drive any rapid change – only a deliberate and consistent majority of people over time.

    It was the basic concept of the Constitution and structure of the US government, that the basic nature of people is good, noble, and bright enough to rule the nation – as long as you moderate out flip or thoughtless reactions/decisions.

  • Edward

    > The Constitution fully allows you to modify it and add or remove rights – as has been done – but it is a big effort requiring the majority of each state to approve a change aproved by a majority of congress.

    The Constitution does not allow “you” to modify it. It only allows government to modify it, as you explained. We The People are not in the loop, only the government is, and we can only hope that those that we elect will represent us faithfully when it modifies the constitution. The lack of such faithful representation explains why we now suffer a tremendous capitation tax, once forbidden by the Constitution.

    > It was the basic concept of the Constitution and structure of the US government, that the basic nature of people is good, noble, and bright enough to rule the nation – as long as you moderate out flip or thoughtless reactions/decisions.

    Unfortunately, the current government is enacting terrible laws. These laws remove our freedoms and are turning us into slaves, whose sole purpose is to feed the ever hungry (read: greedy) government. Power and control over We The People is now the goal of governments at the federal, state, and local levels. We The People are no longer running the government, as most of what is imposed upon us is through unelected bureaucrats (e.g. EPA, IRS, and the coming IPAB).

    We are now (or will be in less than two weeks) required to spend huge sums of our money in a way that government dictates. How is that the freedom envisioned by the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

    Various states have a variety of ways that they limit what we can do, often on the basis of “fairness” (just what *is* “fair” is in the eye of the beholder — the government in most cases, and that seems increasingly to be whatever gets the government the most power) or “it’s for the children.” Where I live, we may only purchase “low flow” toilets — the unintended consequence is that now our municipal sewers are backing up (sorry if you are reading this while eating).

    Cities tell us that we can’t give bags to our customers, what size soda we can sell, and a host of other restrictions that have nothing to do with the basic duties of government: to provide protection and to mediate disputes. But that is seen as OK, because it is fair and for the children.

Leave a Reply

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