Forcing health insurers to violate their conscience is tyrannical

Published:

The Seattle Times editorial, "Birth control is part of health care," reprinted in the Feb. 10 Record-Courier, had serious omissions and misstatements. The recent proposed revisions to the Affordable Care Act's "contraceptive" mandate includes coverage for abortifacient drugs such as Plan B and ella, IUDs and sterilization, as well as "birth control benefits and contraceptives."

Many individual Americans and organizations consider some or all of these immoral and contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs. They should not be coerced by law to pay for these "services."

The services are not free; the government has mandated insurers to pay for them. They will pass the cost on to consumers, including those with moral and religious objections. Further, the revision does not exempt "nonprofit religious organizations -- such as universities, charities and hospitals," from the mandate. The government's own explanation of the revision (see cciio.com.gov) states, "... this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules."

Finally, the revisions explicitly exclude "secular employers who have private religious objections." But the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion to all individuals. One does not forfeit this right just because one employs others. Those who wish to avail themselves of these "services" are free to pay for them either directly or through insurers who freely choose to cover them.

Forcing insurers, organizations or individuals to pay for them in violation of their consciences is tyrannical and unconstitutional.

Raymond J. Adamek, Kent

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • Well, I wonder if they will mandate that the groups pay for Viagra for the men. I think they should.

  • Raymond J. Adamek, one of those Liberal Elite College Professors. Funny to see the Right Wing tottering behind a Elitist considering how much the Right Wing hates the Liberal Prof. But then Adamek has pretty much made a career out of hatred of Womans dominion over their own bodies. EVEN FUNNIER is how Adamek is exempt from paying into the Fed Healthcare because he pays into STRS. So Adamek can't get knocked up and doesn't pay into the system but still here he is, furthering the War on Women and his apparent hatred of Womens Rights. To me that is pretty disgusting.

  • No, this country is not a Democracy it is a Republic, but in a Republic the minority still does not rule. They have rights, but they do not have the rights to take away someone else’s Constitutional Rights. This is what is being done today by the people that get something from the government that they have not earned.

  • Thank you Dr. Adamek, for factually showing that this President, and those that support him, are ignoring the first Amendment which stops the Government from restricting our right to freely practice our religion. Excellant letter!

  • Mob rule is what the election system has become. We no longer have a republic. State's are not represented by senators. We certainly don't have a Federal government, but we are under a national government.

  • Hiram, you delude yourself. The majority only rules in a mobocracy. This is a republic. Mobocracies find themselves subject to the rule "the strongest economy survives". Now, our great King of the Contraceptive describes our economy as too fragile to balance the budget now. But we must expand the hand-outs, at all expense. All those who would destroy America are awe struck that we are doing such a fine job of it ourselves.

  • I also don't see our founding fathers mulling over this. That is because hundreds of years ago this was not an issue. Ian_Maserb this is 2013. George Washington is no longer president. Times have changed, society has changed. Bringing up the founding fathers is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. There is however one thing that hasn't changed, the majority rules. Thank god that hasn't changed!

  • Somehow I don't see the Founding Fathers mulling over the provision of contraceptives as part of the legitimate purposes of the new nation they were creating. I'm sure they would have shivered if any of them had suggested that one day the president of that new nation would be involved in making deals for free contraceptives. Today, Al Qaida thinks, "more contraceptives, fewer Americans, more divisions; our man, Obama!" All those who pray for the destruction of America see their prayers answered in Washington.

  • Excellent letter. I completely agree.