Overreach: Obamacare vs. Constitution
WASHINGTON — Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients—all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.
The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.
Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups—Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold—to hail the alleged compromise and hand Obama a major political victory.
Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would go to jail rather than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.
A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.
On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?
This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should we call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.
Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:
First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious,” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion—no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.
Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services—all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care—a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.
Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control—and presidential whim.
Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court—because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.
This constitutional trifecta—the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen—should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.
In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.
Every presidential challenger says he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Feb 20, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
nation of laws: What about the military? The past draft? Social Security? Taxes? All have been put on U.S. citizens. Constitutional literalism means we go back to the original document, written by enlightened men and slave owners. Guess what? The Constitution is a changing, evolving document. They meant it that way.
Feb 19, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
The fact is that the federal government - per Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution - does not have the authority to mandate Obamacare on the people of this Republic! The federal government not only does not have the authority to mandate Obamacare (but if we give them a pass on that) it is supposed to be uniform for everyone. Everyone! How many free passes have they given out to his largest donors? This man and his entourage of czars need to go!
Feb 18, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
baeguch-You say-"KRAUTHAMMER is an idiot. "Sailor's home" hospitals were established by Jefferson or Adams. I forget which. It was socialized health care with required insurance." and you can't remember what you're trying to say so who's the idiot?
Feb 17, 2012 at 11:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Enough with the hysterical religious freedom argument. Obama's compromise exempts churches, and I am fine with that. Schools, hospitals, and businesses that identify themselves as quasi-religious groups do so by choice. They are not exempt from federal EEOC rules and do not employ only religious workers. An employer has no right, moral or otherwise, to impose its beliefs on workers by refusing to include contraception as part of a comprehensive health insurance plan. As most employers now require employees to pay all or part of their health insurance premiums, the contraception is not truly free. I have no doubt the insurance companies will find a way to recoup any potential losses. Finally, the religious freedom argument totally ignores the fact that individuals have a choice whether to avail themselves of the contraception. No one is being forced to take unwanted birth control, which by the way is prescribed for many things in addition to preventing pregnancy.
The Supreme Court opined that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." Like polygamy, refusing medical treatment for children, and using illegal drugs as part of religious ceremonies. The Constitution is perfectly written in this regard. Practice whatever faith you wish (or none). But the Constitution does not allow religious groups/individuals carte blanche to do whatever they want or impose their will on other individuals. The only trully immoral act here is the desire by some to prevent many others from exercising their own personal freedom to access birth control through their insurance plan.
Feb 17, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
KRAUTHAMMER is an idiot. "Sailor's home" hospitals were established by Jefferson or Adams. I forget which. It was socialized health care with required insurance.
Feb 17, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Women do not have a problem with access to birth control. Why is the gov't even making this an issue. Easily obtained for free or cheap from most womens health orgs supported by the left. Tell me a woman, with a cell phone glued to her ear, cannot afford her own pills.
Feb 17, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
in regard to the changes proposed by the DHHS, from the National Womens Law Center, "(President Obama`s) policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees, and with no co-pay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."
Under EEOC guidelines,employers, with over 15 employees, whose health insurance policies include prescription drug benefits have had to cover contraceptive drugs since 2000, including religious charities and colleges, etc.
Churches were, and are, exempt.
Feb 17, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
westorbust,
You should follow your own advice and look at Obama's "history". Look at his life and his writings and actions. It isn't hard to figure out what he is about. That is why people compare him to a dictator.
Feb 17, 2012 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
@ECartman: Well, that talking point about Obama getting in the way of religious organizations...another spin that is a wrong. Guess who supports business organizations, (religious or not), providing contraception payment? Republicans! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/na...
Feb 17, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry for poating a link without a comment. Priests arrested for praying in front of the whitehouse but the OWS can occupy parks for weeks
Feb 17, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm sure Obama and the other radicals in Washington would like to find the biggest gun and use the Constitution as target practice.
Oh wait, they've been doing that for the past three years.
Feb 17, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybk1v-pkU...
Feb 17, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
Feb 17, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://bryankemper.com/2012/02/16/pictur...
Feb 17, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
West -- when converting a free market economy with a democratic government such as the US, you cannot come out and state you are a dictator or socialist. If you do, you are done. So you gradually move in that direction or create a major disturbance and then -- bang. Your there. Obama's views, his asscoiations, his fathers viewpoints, are all indications of what he would really like. His ties to Media DoesntMatter, do I really need to continue. This guy is scary, and he surrounds himslef with like people. Clinton even advocates making the presidency terms longer, this guy would like it to be similar to a dicatatorship. He is the worst kind of democrat.
Ron Paul is looking better each day.
Feb 17, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Maynard absolutly correct. Free Ha nothing is free all they are doing is hideing the costs. Does anyone truely believe it will be the insurance companies that pay for it?
Feb 17, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm just curious why Obama feels it is neccessary to force Catholics and other religous groups to provide birth control? I know someone else from Germany in the 1930's and 1940's that thought the Jews should be sterile too. I'm starting to make a scary connection here...
Feb 17, 2012 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
"A chicken in every pot" ,,, "free birth control" ... "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time". It amazes me how easily this controversy was diffused. Nothing in life is free. The insurance companies will recoup the cost of suppling "free birth control" by increasing insurance premiums. Effectively the religious institutions will still end up being forced by the government to pay for services (indirectly) that are in opposition of the beliefs of that religious institution. Amazes me how easily people are hoodwinked (think many are just looking for an excuse) ,,, I agree with the author that this is a major overreach of the authority of the executive branch. Congress is supposed to make law ... judicial branch is supposed to enforce law ... NOT the executive branch through decree .... Major violation of states rights and religious freedom IMO.
Feb 17, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm really tired of this absurd posts comparing President Obama to a dictator. Try reading a history book (one that isn't written by O'reilly or Beck) and get some perspective on the matter before spouting off about socialism, communism and dictators. It's clear many have no clue what they are even talking about.
Feb 17, 2012 at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
I sure hope that Obama is beat in the fall. If not I fear that we will no longer be a free country. That the left and progressives will change our country to a socialist dictatorship as we fall into an economic collapse from the weight of debt. It will provide the means for the far left to turn us into a China or EU style socialist economic state. States rights will completely disappear. It will be the end of the US constitution.
More and more -- I am leaning to Ron Paul. Maybe a revolution.
Feb 17, 2012 at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
totellthetruth: I'm hearing alot of the 'dictator' talking points on t.v. late. Republicans introduced the idea of an insurance mandate. Their idea, but Obama likes it, they now hate it. Thank God for FDR care, LBJ care etc.!
The economy is recovering, so here we go to social issues that go nowhere.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.