• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Women Speak Out: Obamacare Mandate Tramples on Religious Liberty

    Anyone who hasn’t heard the women’s voices speaking out against the Obamacare anti-conscience mandate over the past few weeks hasn’t been listening very well. Yesterday, to make sure they’re heard, women from diverse backgrounds gathered at Heritage to join their voices with countless others in dispelling the myths about mandate and denouncing the Administration’s most recent assault on liberty.

    On Monday, The Heritage Foundation and the National Review Institute hosted “Women Speak Out: Obamacare Tramples Religious Liberty.” Representative Ann Marie Buerkle (R–NY) joined policy experts and faith leaders to discuss how religious liberty has become an early casualty in Obamacare’s collision course with freedom.

    “This is not an issue of birth control or of contraception, or abortion, or sterilization,” Buerkle stated. “This is an issue of First Amendment rights.”

    The anti-conscience mandate will force employers to provide coverage and pay for abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B and the “week-after” pill ella, in addition to contraception and sterilization. The mandate’s offensively narrow religious exemption fails to protect many religious employers such as schools, hospitals, and social service groups, some of whom hold deep religious and moral objections to providing for such services.

    “There are no adequate conscience protections in this mandate for mercy in society given by the church,” explained Maggie Karner, director of Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod’s Life and Health Ministries. She continued:

    For religious people, mercy is not confined to our houses of worship. It is not about caring for ourselves. It is about caring for others, those outside the walls of the sanctuary and in the most needful areas of our society.… But we can only do so if we are given the freedom to work within the framework of our beliefs. The anti-conscience mandate does not allow that. It does not allow for the free exercise of our First Amendment rights.

    Backed into a corner, where the only routes of escape from the coercive mandate are violating deeply held beliefs or paying steep fines, some non-exempted religious employers will face the tragic third possibility of closure.

    “For the very first time my conscience will cost me a federal fine. Whose ends does that serve?” asked Kate O’Beirne, president of the National Review Institute. “Not the employees who currently have health insurance they’re presumably happy with.… Fewer sick people cared for, fewer children educated, fewer hungry fed—that’s the effect of millions of dollars in federal fines.”

    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing four religious organizations in lawsuits against the Obama Administration.

    “We have a Constitution that protects the religious freedom of these organizations,” Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund, stated. “It protects the religious freedom of the women and the men in these organizations, and they’re just asking that they be able to continue enjoying that religious freedom. This mandate hurts religious organizations. It hurts the people they serve. It’s unconstitutional.”

    As Pia de Solenni, ethicist and owner of Diotima Consulting, explained: “This goes much broader than most religious groups because it’s about freedom per se. It’s about whether or not individuals have the rights to make decisions for themselves.… Are we as human beings so incompetent that we cannot make decisions for ourselves about our own health care covering the needs that we want?”

    Hadley Heath, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum—a group that has no religious stake in the debate but sees in the erosion of our first freedom an implicit attack on all our liberties—explained:

    The new health law simply expands government’s role too far. This will be destructive for our constitutional design for government, for individual choice in the marketplace, and for the marketplace of ideas. In other words, at its core, Obamacare is anti-Constitution, anti-choice, and anti-competition.

    It should surprise no one that a law that limits competition, restricts personal choice, and surrenders power over health care decisions to government bureaucrats would be used to run roughshod over religious liberty. As Buerkle explained:

    The very essence of the health care law—the very essence of it—is that the government will tell you what your health care is going to be. So it is absolutely a logical sequence that we now have the government stepping in and saying, “Okay, we’re going to pick your conscience issues.”… This rule is nothing more than a continuation of what we’ve seen. It is just the government way overstepping its bounds.… You have the rights. You shouldn’t be going to them for permission.… We need to get government back to its proper role.

    Obamacare tramples on the right to the free exercise of religion, specifically, and individual freedom, generally, and should be repealed. Until that happens, these and many other women will be in the same place they’ve been since the beginning of the anti-conscience mandate debate: standing up for religious liberty and fighting for individual freedom.

    For more on this issue, watch our video: Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Women Speak Out: Obamacare Mandate Tramples on Religious Liberty

    1. Bobbie says:

      if sperm is the ultimate enemy here, why is this even a woman's issue regarding the sick term from the mouths of government authority called "accommodation?" why is there no mention of the male providing for protection like they were once male enough to do? why is this exploitation of personal issues coming through government when it was never the role of government? Where's protection for the people?

    2. colleen10001 says:

      The Catholic Church is one of the largest providers of charity in the U.S. The Church wants to function as it always has, free of government intervention.
      The Blunt Amendment simply uses exact text from the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467), so the church can function as it did before Obamacare. 
      So basically no one wants anything other then to function with the same "Religious Liberty" as the Church always has.  Did you really think everyone who warned about the Obamacare Mandates would just say- "Oh, OK"- we didn't really want the "Religious Liberty" our country was founded on anyway. Colleen Barry

    3. Deloris Linam says:

      The contraception mandate is absolutely not a women's health issue. It is not only a religious freedom issue, but it is also an issue of women abdicating personal responsibility for their sexual behavior. I am a member of a generation who practiced abstinence until marriage, and then we practiced personal responsibility with marital sex for our family planning. Count me as not only a advocate of religious freedom, but also an advocate for personal responsibility for sexual behavior.

    4. Frieda says:

      Has anyone read the healthcare mandate? It says that you are required to purchase health insurance, but there will not be a penalty if you do not buy insurance. The mandate will not be enforced. You do not have to buy insurance and you do not have to pay the penalty. It cannot be taken out of you paycheck and it cannot be taken out of your taxes. Read the mandate clause before you form your opinion!!!!!

    5. Johnny says:

      I guess Frieda you did not read it either. You must have heard it on NBC or some other propaganda network that it was not a tax or penalty. For 3 days this very topic was being discussed in the Supreme Court and it was discussed as a penalty or a tax for not buying insurance. There are very few exclusions to the penalty or tax. The penalty for people who forego insurance is the greater of two amounts: a specified percentage of income or a specified dollar amount. The percentages of income are phased in over time at 1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, and 2.5% starting in 2016. The dollar amounts are also phased in at $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 beginning in 2016 (with annual increases after that).

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×