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.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Why the Obamacare HHS mandate is wrong

  1. eyeontheuniverse says:

    “First, the mandate forces those individuals who are opposed to abortion, contraception, or sterilization to pay for procedures that they believe are morally wrong.”

    Taxes require people to pay for wars and education they think is morally wrong. Unless you support elective taxes you already think that coercive financial support is OK in a society.

    “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.”

    This is the same as #1. We already do this…every society does. It is impossible to function if every religious whim is given free reign. If my personal go tells me tomorrow that I should drive ont he left side of the road sacrifice small children this will not be allowed. We restrict religion all the time, and only make allowances where it is non-problematic.

    “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.”

    Birth control saves healthcare dollars. All forms of birth control and abortion are cheaper than pregnancy and infant care. This argument is nonsensical.

    “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.”

    What do you mean by “medically unnecessary”? A pregnancy causes far more wear and tear ont the body than birth control or abortion, and occasionally has serious health risks. Do you think flu vaccines are “medically unnecessary” because most people won’t die with the flu? What is your definition of “medically necessary”? Think about this carefully, because you are going to be restricting a lot of services we’ve taken for granted for years.

  2. For a medical procedure to be medically necessary, the following criteria must be met:

    1. The medical procedure is needed to prevent, diagnose or treat an illness, injury, condition, disease or its symptoms,
    2. The medical procedure is performed in accordance with the accepted standards of medicine,
    3. The medical procedure is clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration, and considered effective for the patient’s illness, injury or disease,
    4. The medical procedure is not primarily for the convenience of the patient or the doctor, and
    5. The medical procedure is not more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of that patient’s illness, injury or disease.

    A medically unnecessary procedure refers to a medical procedure that does not meet the criteria of medical necessity. Many of the abortions being performed at American abortion clinics do not meet the criteria for medical necessity because most abortions are being performed for the purposes of getting rid of an unborn child who is unwanted by his or her mother, most abortions are being performed for the convenience of the mother, and many of the abortions being performed are not needed to prevent or treat an illness, injury, medical condition, or disease.

    While I do agree that a pregnancy can cause wear and tear on a woman’s body, I do not agree that abortion causes more wear and tear than pregnancy since pregnancies that are terminated through surgical abortion can result in more wear and tear than pregnancies that are carried to term and that result in a live birth. There have been many incidents of botched abortions at American abortion clinics, and these botched abortions have caused more wear and tear than carrying a pregnancy to term and allowing the baby to be delivered naturally would. Additionally, some of the women who have had botched abortions will lose their fertility due to the damage to their reproductive organs caused by an botched abortion, and there have even been cases where women died from botched abortions.

  3. eyeontheuniverse says:

    According to the Feb 2012 edition of Obstetrics & Gynecology.the risk of death to the mother from childbirth is 8.8 deaths per 100,000 and just .6 for abortion. The numbers are similar for injury. The only way you can argue greater harm from abortion is by using the zygote/embryo/fetus as a reference point…meaning you are preaching to the choir. As far as the mother is concerned, you really have to fudge the data to claim she’s better of carrying the pregnancy. This doesn’t even take into account other possible impacts like earlier onset of dementia with each pregnancy.

    While happily married, older middle to upper class women get a slight boost in happiness, the data shows (see Gilbert, for example) most other people take a psychological as well as physical hit…for an average of 18 years. If you want to trick women into carrying pregnancies, do your best, but the data indicates the physical harms far outweigh the few benefits, and the psychological boost is seen only in very ideal conditions.

    • There are problems with statistics showing that the rate of women dying from abortion is far less than that of women dying from childbirth. First, the complications and the deaths arising from abortion are underreported. Second, the cause of death of women who die from legal abortion procedures is frequently represented in statistics as being a cause other than the abortion procedure. Third, the sample size used for the abortion death rate is far smaller than the sample size for the childbirth death rate. Fourth, the same complications that occur in childbirth can certainly occur in surgical abortions, since there are similarities between surgical abortion and childbirth even though surgical abortion usually causes the death of an unborn child and childbirth usually results in the live birth of a baby. Fifth, abortionists who are primarily in the business of performing elective abortions often fail to maintain the standards of care that are usually maintained by most physicians who do not work in the abortion industry. Last, abortionists and the abortion industry will misrepresent the statistics in order to conceal the dangers of abortion procedures, to avoid negative publicity, and to ensure that they do not lose business which might occur if the dangers were not misrepresented.

      There is an article on LifeNews.com that was published two years ago that explains that abortion is actually more dangerous by childbirth, and this article backs up this position using a study conducted in Finland as well as an explanation on how some of the statistics are flawed. Here is a link to that article.

      • eyeontheuniverse says:

        I hope it’s not necessary to point out this rather obvious math, but even if there were a fourfold increase in death the year after abortion, it wouldn’t make up for a 15 fold increase immediately attributable. Parent are generally far less likely to kill themselves when depressed than non-parents, btw, because of the responsibilities of having a child. The implication of your argument would be that we should encourage depressed women to get pregnant on the grounds that, despite increasing their risk of depression, they would be less likely to kill themselves out of a duty their children. Do you really want to go there?

      • Even if an abortion were capable of reducing the risk of depression, it would not be morally justifiable to seek an abortion as a means to that end because an abortion is inherently ordered towards causing the death of an unborn baby.

  4. eyeontheuniverse says:

    If you want to define reducing one’s risk of death, injury, illness and psychological suffering as “convenience”, go ahead, but you’ve rules out pretty much all preventative medicine at that point.

    • Most abortions are not preventative in nature because most abortions are not performed for the purposes of preventing death, injury, or illness. Furthermore, the fact that the life or health of the mother is in danger is not sufficient to make an abortion medically necessary, because the life or health of a pregnant woman can often be protected through means other than abortion, even in circumstances where the life of the mother is in danger.

      A prohibition on abortion or a prohibition on government funding for abortion does not and cannot constitute a complete prohibition on preventative medicine, because many medical procedures that are preventative in nature will remain legal even if abortion is outlawed. An abortion differs from other medical procedures performed for preventative purposes because an abortion always causes the death of an unborn human being and other preventative medical procedures do not normally cause the death of a patient.

      For a medical procedure to be moral, both the intended end and the intended means must be good. An abortion performed as a means to the good end of preventing the death of a pregnant woman is always morally wrong since the abortion will cause the death of her unborn child, but most other preventative medical procedures performed for the purposes of preventing illness or death would be morally good because these procedures protect the life and health of a person through morally good means.

  5. eyeontheuniverse says:

    Every argument you make for undercounts for abortion deaths is equally true for pregnancy. And you think these undercounts account for an almost 15 fold difference in the numbers.

    What you really should be saying is “A woman should be willing to take a 10-15 fold increase in death risk rather than killing a baby” (I’m using this terminology only for the sake of argument). That’s what you mean and at least includes no intentinal lies.

    So if we take as a premise (again, only for the sake of argument) that abortion is killing a “person”, we have some interesting questions. How much of a personal risk must a person be willing to take to save another life? What is the cut-off?

    If you don’t want to face those tough questions you can believe the world is ordered so the answers are easy. You can falsely believe childbirth is safer than abortion. But at that point it is you who are lying to yourself and lying to others put of convenience.

    • Even if it were true that carrying pregnancy to term poses a greater risk than having an abortion, it would never be morally permissible to directly kill an unborn child through an direct abortion, even as a means to the good end of preserving the life of the mother or as a means to the good end of reducing the risk of the mother dying as a result of the pregnancy, because direct abortion is by its very nature always morally wrong and always offends against the unviolable right of an unborn child to life. An intrinsically evil act, including all direct abortions, can never be transformed into a morally good kind of act through the ability to bring about good consequences because an intrinsically evil act is always by its very nature ordered towards a morally evil end, regardless of the subjective intention behind the act or the specific circumstances of the act.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s