Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Obama's Final Answer: "No" To Conscience

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

After much theater and rhetoric about religious freedom, the father of Obamacare continues to pursue his dreams.

A secularized America.
We welcome your comments, regardless of your view on these issues. However, we do not allow links, that includes your name as a url. Thank you.

The Obama administration has finally lifted the curtain, gotten to the truth and is now officially declaring in the final text of the federal regulation that employers WILL be required to provide women with free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs.

The final regulation makes no exception at all for individuals or for-profit companies that have moral and religious objections to sterilizations, contraceptives or abortion.

Hobby Lobby has sued the government for their right to religious freedom.

And the non-profits who were promised protection for their religious convictions and matters of conscience---well, they are sort of protected. However, their protection is conditional on their becoming a knowing conduit for their employees to access abortion inducing drugs.

To act on one's conscience, one must become an accomplice.

And the justification for this is stunning, and misleading.

CNS News says this about it:

The final regulation makes no exemption at all for individuals or for-profit companies that have moral or religious objections to sterilization, contraception, or abortion. The Catholic Church considers all three intrinsically immoral, and many other Christian denominations object to abortion as the taking of an innocent human life.

Catholics and Evangelical Christians have argued--including in dozens of ongoing federal court cases--that the regulation violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously approved a statement last year declaring the regulation an "unjust and illegal mandate."

The final regulation released today says that religious non-profit organizations that provide health-care plans to their workers must have a system set up where those workers get coverage for free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs as a matter of course when they join the religious non-profit's own health plan.

In such cases, under the regulation, the insurance company used by the religious non-profit would be forced to provide the free coverage directly to the employees of the religious non-profit. In the case of a self-insured religious non-profit, the third-party administrator of the plan will be forced to work with an insurance company to provide the free services.

The regulation would thus force religious organizations to become knowing conduits for their employee to access abortion-inducing drugs.

Here's the government rationale for violating religious freedom and conscience rights.

The regulation says, "Covering contraceptives also yields significant cost savings."

How so?

"Well," the government says, "a 2000 study estimated that it would cost 15 to 17% more not to provide such coverage in employee health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of the pregnancy and the individual costs, such as employee absence."

So, the government extrapolated from that there will be a "significant" cost savings. The government is wanting to help businesses save money.

However, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services have reviewed the Obamacare mandate.

They say "no," that's not right. After free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs the effect will be "cost neutral."

Who told the government it would save 15 to 17% for companies?

That information came from the Guttmacher Institute.

What is the Guttmacher Institute?

Since its founding in 1968 by Frederick Jaffee as the Center for Family Planning Program Development, it has been associated with Planned Parenthood.

The name was later changed to Guttmacher Institute in honor of a former president of Planned Parenthood.

In 1977, Guttmacher began to lose grants from companies who did not want to contribute to Planned Parenthood. At that time Guttmacher was made an independent company.

It was a faux divorce.

Guttmacher remains a strong ally and resource for Planned Parenthood and receives millions of dollars from Planned Parenthood as "an Independent Affiliated Organization." Essentially they can find research to support most any idea Planned Parenthood needs supported.

It's important to know the philosophy behind Guttmacher.

In 1969, a year after founding the institute, Frederick Jaffee, although denied by Planned Parenthood, did major research for "Beyond Family Planning," a paper that would become the blueprint for progressives and their quest for social change.

Bernard Berelson wrote the paper. He was deeply committed to population control, government dominance in social issues and the secularization and redefining of the family and family roles. He was a strong advocate for using public education as the vehicle to create this change.

The link above to his paper will show you that he viewed population growth as the biggest problem in the world, advocated strongly for population control including volunteer control and government mandated birth control. He attached great urgency to addressing the problem, saying the longer we wait, the more difficult the solution.

He even advocated for "temporary sterilization of all girls via time capsule contraception." He urged strong sex-ed programs in public schools, incentives for childless couples, a recasting of the female role, encouraging them to work outside the home and welfare benefits and penalties to advance the agenda.

If you have a moment, read the link above and look at Obamacare through that lens. And look at Planned Parenthood, as well.

The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday titled, "Health Care Costs Set For A Jolt." Their analysis shows substantial cost increases, in some cases more than double and triple for health care, once Obamacare is in place in 2014.

"Benefits and penalties to advance the agenda."

This is where we are today in America.

I'm going to be talking more about this on the radio today. We will also take a look at one of Patrick Henry's most famous speeches. It could, and perhaps should be given today.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Brave. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. As if we are in another world. Please help us Lord to stop this in its tracks. Let men and women of conscience rise up and use their voice, money and influence.

  2. I say, do as the Duggers do! Be of service to your community by volunteering, be a debt-free U.S. citizen, teach your children to be respectful, obedient and kind, receive joyfully and thankfully all of the children God gives to you without any population control devices like birth control and love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul!

    To love Him is to trust Him!

  3. Let's get down to the root.

    Can anyone make a good argument that one's personal belief system should make them exempt from the laws of the land that everyone else has to follow?

    I don't believe there is a compelling argument. A law is either a law or it isn't. Religious exemptions are weaselly.

    1. So when people were compelled to pray in public schools you were fine with that ? Seems you want freedom of religion only when it oppresses your conscience .

      Because a law is secular makes it no less a violation of conscience then if it a religious law . In China laws state you have to have an abortion . Would an exemption based on your morality be more important because it was based on a secular morality that says you should not force someone to have an abortion . That would be weaselly ?

      Celebrating the Fourth of July I thank God for a nation that still has so many people in it that will support and defend freedom , even to the point of doing it with their weaselly lives .

    2. No, I wouldn't be fine with a law that required praying in school. But, if it was actually the law of the land, I would fight it, but I wouldn't expect to be exempt just because I disagreed with it.

      You still haven't made a compelling argument for letting people violate a law simply because they disagree with it.

      And, yes, religious exemptions are weaselly. It's like saying that as a society, we believe a certain activity should be required of absolutely everyone - unless you disagree - then we don't want to force the issue. Weaselly!

  4. I guess this helps explain the administration's push for gay rights here and around the world--the more gays, the less kids will be born. It fits right in with abortion in all of its forms as an attempt for population control. That article published in February of 1969 was incredible--where do they find these people? The over-population people don't seem take their own lives to 'save our planet', so how much do they really believe in this stuff? Why do they think 'some one else' should be eliminated or prevented to live in order to serve out their plan? It all seems extremely selfish. All of these 'fears' of over population are yet another of man's futile attempt to 'take charge' and completely turn their back on God and the Truth of his Word. Our country is getting exactly what we asked for. We did elect this president and this congress. Too many people would rather watch football than take the time and effort to pay attention to what is happening with our government. Just the changes to our country in the last 6 months are amazing! Biblical principles are under brute attack by this government. This administrations veil of 'reality' is being lifted. Better wake up people, because now it is time to pay up.

    1. Equal rights for gays doesn't create more gays, God does.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.