I have already opined about the Obama Administration’s ordering all health insurance companies to cover free birth control and other “reproductive” services—some of which are not even medical in nature. From “Obamacare: Lard on the Goodies, Destroy the System:”
The pattern is set. Special interest constituencies will continually demand ever more; e.g. coverage for illegal aliens, coverage for abortion, coverage for IVF, etc. etc. etc. At the same time, powerless people will be offered ever less, e.g., imposition of futile care theory and health care rationing against the morbidly elderly, the dying, and people with severe disabilities. See, these groups have no powerful political constituency groups grabbing pieces of the pie for them. They will matter little in the emerging corrupt system of exchanging health care benefit spoils in return for political support, which is the essence of Obamacare. That preliminary rule has now been made permanent and every criticism I expressed I repeat here as fully set forth (as we lawyers like to say)
This decree is also a radical secularist assault on religious freedom as it forces religions institutions to cover prescriptions and medical procedures that they theologically oppose (with extremely limited exceptions). This is a different and far more ominous matter than a general law that only incidentally violates individual consciences, already permitted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but disallowed by the Illinois Supreme Court. Rather, it is a direct and I believe malicious assault on religious liberty, one of the bedrock American freedoms. Frankly, I believe that churches, mosques, and temples should drop health coverage for all rather than allow the government to force them to violate their beliefs. No question, this becomes a huge legal issue if Obamacare survives the 2012 election. More on this as the lawsuits are filed.
Finally, I hope this dictat hurts the law in the U. S. Supreme Court. I have predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court will declare Obamacare constitutional. However, I do not think any of the more conservative justices—only one or two of whom I see voting yes on Obamacare—will do so eagerly or happily. It might not take much to push them back in the other direction.
It is possible that this rule will highlight Obamacare’s radical overreach. Indeed, all the limiting language in the world would not long restrain the seeping incursion of centralized federal power into national life, and far beyond health care. With Obamacare, we are on the cusp of ceasing to be a society defined by limited government. Hence, I hope this rule generates a breeze pushing the “wavering” justices back in the other direction toward unconstitutionality. Yes, I am definitely whistling past the graveyard here. But I am pretty desperate to find silver linings.
Update: Apparently the lawsuits have begun.
