Why the Obamacare HHS mandate is wrong

The mandated coverage of abortion, contraceptives, and elective sterilization under the Obamacare HHS mandate is wrong to begin with for several reasons. First, the mandate forces those individuals who are opposed to abortion, contraception, or sterilization to pay for procedures that they believe are morally wrong. Second, the mandate does substantially and unreasonably restrict the religious freedom of some Americans because it forces some Americans to engage in actions that violate their consciences and their deeply held religious beliefs. Third, mandating coverage for abortion, contraceptives, and sterilization under the Obamacare HHS mandate takes away money from other healthcare services that are clearly medically necessary. Finally, the Obamacare HHS mandate provides providers that are primarily in the business of providing elective abortions, elective sterilizations, and providing contraceptives for the purposes of preventing unplanned pregnancies, including Planned Parenthood, with federal funds that they need to stay afloat, even though these providers are providing services that are often medically unnecessary.

To understand why the Obamacare HHS mandate is wrong and how American society got into this controversial mandate, one needs to understand how American society has changed from a culture of life where abortion is illegal to a culture of death where abortion on demand is legal during all nine months of pregnancy. Our founding fathers clearly believed that the government should not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right of persons to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and our founding fathers also believed that the right to life should not be restricted to persons who have been born and should be extended to unborn human beings. Back in the 1700’s when the United States was founded, contraception and abortion were both considered to be morally wrong by the Catholic Church and the various Protestant churches that existed in the United States in the late 1700’s. Every major Christian denomination did consider contraception to be morally wrong until the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930, where the Church of England for the very first time considered it to be morally acceptable for married couples to use contraception if there is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. Then in 1960, the birth control pill was made available for contraceptive use, and this will lead to the sexual revolution and the legalization of contraception and abortion nationwide in the United States. The availability of the birth control pill and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s will lead to the legalization of contraception and abortion nationwide. Since then, the culture of death and the support for legalized abortion have existed in the United States, but the promotion of the culture of death and the legalization of abortion and contraception has had many bad consequences for American society for over 40 years.

The sexual revolution, the legalization of contraception, the legalization of abortion, and pro-abortion politics have all paved the way for the Obamacare HHS mandate, and the Obamacare HHS mandate would not have existed without the legalization of abortion in the United States or the existence of a pro-abortion political climate within the United States. In fact, if the so-called constitutional right to an abortion were not created by the United States Supreme Court as a result of Roe v. Wade and if the United States Supreme Court had upheld the laws that were at stake in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, then legal abortion on demand would not exist in some states of the United States, the political climate on abortion would be very different in the United States, and the mandated coverage of abortion under Obamacare would not exist. Some of the bad consequences that have resulted from the culture of death of the United States have already occurred, including the deaths of over 50 million babies from abortion, a lowering of moral standards in American society, and an increased willingness to get rid of unwanted unborn children through legal abortion.

The legalization of abortion in the United States has led to a significant increase in the overall abortion rate in the United States and an significant increase in the number of abortion providers in the United States, but this trend has been reversing in recent years due to the closures of abortion clinics, decreased demand for legal abortion, and increased regulation of abortion at the state level in some states. Even though progress has been made in the pro-life movement in the United States, more needs to be done to reverse the culture of death that exists in the United States, including the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision and the abolition of mandatory coverage of abortion, contraception, and elective sterilization in Obamacare. More information about how to oppose the Obamacare HHS mandate can be found here.

The Fortnight for Freedom, which started today, and runs through July 4th, is intended to raise awareness of the effects of the Obamacare mandate and other proposed laws on the religious freedoms of Catholics and other Americans. The theme of the this year’s Fortright for Freedom is serving the poor and vulnerable in accordance with human dignity and the law of God. In addition to raising awareness regarding the Obamacare mandate and its effects on the religious freedoms of many Americans, the Fortnight for Freedom is also intended to raise awareness of the unjust discrimination being perpetrated against Catholics, conservative Protestants, and others who oppose abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriages. More information about the Fortnight for Freedom can be found at One More Soul’s Fortnight for Freedom 2014 page and USCCB’s Fortnight For Freedom page.

The issues with so-called “health of the mother” exceptions

Legal abortion-on-demand in the United States had been legalized during all 9 months of pregnancy during the Roe v. Wade case by requiring that abortion remain legal where it is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” The definition of “health” applied that was applied to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton was a broad definition that included both physical well-being and emotional well-being. The United States Supreme Court will say in the final ruling of Doe v. Bolton “that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.”

Here are the main issues with so-called “health of the mother exceptions” in laws prohibiting abortion:

  • These exceptions enable abortionists to perform abortions by falsely claiming that an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the mother in cases where an abortion is not needed to preserve the health of the mother, and as such have enabled abortionists to perform abortion-on-demand during all 9 months of pregnancy.
  • The vast majority of abortions are performed for purposes other than the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • Almost all of the pregnancies that are aborted could have been safely carried to term if the mother did not have the abortion and the mother received proper medical care.
  • These exceptions have enabled abortion to be legal in circumstances where abortion should not be legal.
  • These exceptions fail to take into account the dangers that abortion poses to the health and lives of the women who undergo abortions.
  • In many cases, the health of a pregnant woman whose health is in danger can be preserved by means that do not involve the killing of the unborn child or the termination of pregnancy prior to term.
  • Most of the surgical elective abortion procedures involve steps that are not essential to successfully terminating the pregnancy and are not essential to preserving the life or health of the mother. These extra steps exist in elective abortions to increase the likelihood of the death of an unborn child in cases where the procedure is performed after viability, to increase the profit of abortion clinics, and to make these elective abortions more efficient.
  • There have been cases where women have died as a result of the complications of a legal abortion procedure, and more women will die from legal abortion procedures until abortion is outlawed.
  • Many post-abortive women will suffer complications from their abortion procedures, and most post-abortive women will eventually regret their decision to have an abortion.
  • Abortion is not always effective in preserving the health of the mother, even though it might be legal to perform an abortion as a means to preserving the health of the mother.
  • Even though the health of the mother exception was intended to benefit pregnant women, this exception has often failed to accomplish its intended purpose because abortion procedures can pose a danger to the health of the mother, because abortion procedures are not always effective in preserving the health of the mother, and because unborn children are unnecessarily being killed through abortions.

Even though the United States Supreme Court imposed the requirement that abortion remain legal where it is deemed necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother in the Roe v. Wade case, the United States Constitution itself does not require that abortions which are performed for the purposes of preserving the health of the mother or in circumstances where the abortion is determined to be necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother be treated differently from abortions in other circumstances. As such, the United States Supreme Court should allow reasonable restrictions and prohibitions on abortion to remain constitutionally valid and legally enforceable in circumstances where an abortion is deemed to be necessary to the preservation of the health of the mother, provided that the same restrictions or prohibitions would be constitutionally valid and legally enforceable in circumstances where the abortion is not necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother. Furthermore, abortion should not be legal under “health of the mother” exceptions in cases where it is reasonably certain that the mother can safely carry the pregnancy to term with proper medical care.

The United States Supreme Court must reverse the requirement for “health of the mother” exceptions in laws that prohibit abortion procedures, even if abortion is still legal for the preservation for the health of the mother under state law in some states, because the imposition of this requirement by the United States Supreme Court has done more harm than good. The imposition of this requirement has led to many bad consequences since Roe v. Wade, including the unnecessary killing of unborn children, the increased availability of legal abortion procedures, the harm caused to the medical profession as a result of the legalization of abortion and the increased availability of legal abortion procedures, and harm to post-abortive women as a result of the complications of legal abortions. The reversal of the requirement for a “health of the mother” exception will deliver many benefits, including more flexibility in regulating the abortion industry, fewer women dying from legal abortions, fewer women suffering from the complications of an abortion, less demand for abortions, and improved integrity of the medical profession.