• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Life, Religious Liberty at Heart of Obamacare Repeal Bill

    Legislation to repeal Obamacare under consideration in the House today makes clear in two significant findings the massive health care law’s threat to religious liberty, conscience rights, and the protection of human life:

    (7) While President Obama promised that nothing in the law would fund elective abortion, the law expands the role of the Federal Government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The law appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides Federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Moreover, the law effectively forces millions of individuals to personally pay a separate abortion premium in violation of their sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

    (8) Until enactment of the law, the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers. The law creates a new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover “essential health benefits” and “preventive services”, but does not allow stakeholders to opt out of covering items or services to which they have a religious or moral objection, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103–141). By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates jeopardize the ability of institutions and individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

    The need to repeal Obamacare to address these and many other concerns for the future of Americans’ liberty remains in the wake of the Supreme Court’s sharply divided decision upholding Obamacare.

    As a result, Obamacare’s multiple threats to religious liberty, rights of conscience, and the protection of human life remain.

    Of particular concern is the contraception mandate, which goes into effect on August 1 and is the subject of some 23 lawsuits around the country. It compels religious and other employers to cover—at no charge to the insured—abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, regardless of an employer’s moral or religious objection.

    The mandate, which tramples on the free exercise of religion and conscience rights of employers and individuals, is just the first chilling example of how Americans’ individual liberties will be adversely affected as the statute is implemented.

    It raises significant questions about what more Obamacare will require on other matters of deeply personal religious and moral significance, such as prenatal care, end-of-life issues, and parental authority for minors’ health decisions.

    To protect religious liberty specifically and individual freedom generally, Obamacare must be repealed. Centralized health care policy that defines what individuals must buy, what employers must cover, and what insurers must offer puts the moral compass in the hands of bureaucrats and will continue to trample on conscience as implementation continues.

    Posted in Featured, Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    17 Responses to Life, Religious Liberty at Heart of Obamacare Repeal Bill

    1. Bobbie says:

      Specificity when it comes to hypocrites like Pelosi and her accusations regarding pre-existing conditions. She accuses for fear effect only otherwise she and those select wouldn't get preferential waivers or even consider not having obamacare. 30 million people probably don't want to be forced either but are still not worth this horrific plan and can cover their costs on their own through their personal resources like everyone else! America doesn't want obamacare and Pelosi people refuse the acknowledgment! She refuses to commence the will of the people!! She has no respect for Americans and she doesn't represent the American woman in the least bit! Come to think of it, there's no democratic woman I or my girls would ever look up to! Pelosi people are instigating government dependency for women which means increase control, ladies!!!!!

      Did I hear the dems hunting down Mr. Romni because he has money overseas? While the same dems that married into money and gained more by corrupting the tax payers of America do to? What a bunch of low-life, feeble minded cowards! When Mr. Romni worked in the private sector he didn't effect anyone's livelihoods that wasn't associated with him. He didn't force us to choose one way or another. It's really dishonorable to compare what Romni did in the private sector to what government democrats have done to all America. As President he already shows his respect for America as America, not as America's government and through his history of his own livelihood, he shows his respect for we the people of every human race who have ambition and are willed to reach our goals of various success not necessarily financial but whatever our personal interests that maintain our personal livelihoods with the freedom of our American own.

    2. @RahabToo says:

      Insurance has been my professional life for some years now. Because of that, I have had a front row seat to the desperation and chaos caused in folks' lives when they cannot get or cannot afford decent health care. My business demands that I keep contracts with at least 10 or more insurance carriers in order to possibly help some folks some of the time. Watching folks go bankrupt, get refused both life and health coverages, and grieve that their illness has disenfranchised them from even simple respect makes me shout for the liberty you argue for. Pro life should include those who work all their lives only to watch sickness steal their labor and dignity. __Pro life advocates must include the born as well as the unborn in their calls for liberty. Abortion choices are a matter of educating fearful and selfish mothers on the value of life. That matter of character and the redeemed heart cannot be legislated. As a consultant who talks with retirees for a living, medicare is nothing less than a life savior to them. The Affordable Care Act changes lives for thousands even now. Are they worthy of your calls for life?

      • rich says:

        They most certainly are worthy of the fight for protecting their right to life. Which is exactly why I am so opposed to the " affordable " care act. It is a bait and switch plan that will not result in increased care for the elderly. Rather, over time it will result in savings being realized when the same government that controls health care expenditures AND social security will use that linkage to allow the sick and/or elderly to be denigned care as the compassion of the IRS and all other federal programs is caried into complete control of health care……which is the end goal

    3. @RahabToo says:

      Insurance has been my professional life for some years now. Because of that, I have had a front row seat to the desperation and chaos caused in folks' lives when they cannot get or cannot afford decent health care. My business demands that I keep contracts with at least 10 or more insurance carriers in order to possibly help some folks some of the time. Watching folks go bankrupt, get refused both life and health coverages, and grieve that their illness has disenfranchised them from even simple respect makes me shout for the liberty you argue for. Pro life should include those who work all their lives only to watch sickness steal their labor and dignity.

      Pro life advocates must include the born as well as the unborn in their calls for liberty. Abortion choices are a matter of educating fearful and selfish mothers on the value of life. That matter of character and the redeemed heart cannot be legislated. As a consultant who talks with retirees for a living, medicare is nothing less than a life savior to them. The Affordable Care Act changes lives for thousands even now. Are they worthy of your calls for life?

      • Bobbie says:

        It is disgusting the government didn't oversee to correct like their government duty calls for. I guess a person must be under societal mental derangement to trust their health care within the control of government. The affordable health care act isn't affordable. It's already reduced the quality and expensed more. When insurance wasn't available to those that didn't have it and before government created a mountain out of a mole hill and through the abuse of their authority, hospitals used to take the loss. NOT UNINVOLVED PEOPLE! I'll say it's changed lives for thousands even now, FOR THE WORSE!

    4. Kevin says:

      In terms of constitutionality, this article actually has the issue of abortion and contraception completely reversed, especially in the circumstances of preventative health. Abortion and contraception are medical by nature, and their most important application is blocked without these provisions. In the case of abortion, cases which threaten the life of the mother are precluded from health insurance by many companies. For example, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, the baby has no chance of surviving, the mother has no chance of surviving, and yet many insurers will still refuse to cover an abortion. The irony of the "sanctity of human life" argument is not lost on me in this application. In the case of contraception, in addition to many contraceptives' application as preventative measures, it is a matter of providing the same coverage to women which is afforded to men. In the same way that viagra is not implicitly necessary to any man's health, contraceptives (which actually ARE necessary to health in many cases) are simply being included in health coverage, as viagra is. The claim that this bill in any way prohibits religious freedom is ludicrous. In fact, it promotes it. The first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. What is being purported here is completely contrary to that idea. To clamor for a bill's repeal for the sake of one religion (the arguments here-in are predicated on the Judeo-Christian ideologies) is implicitly against the notion of a "separation of church and state". All the provisions for abortion and healthcare aims to achieve is preventing institutions with religious affiliation (Notice the very important distinction of religious institutions and institutions with religious affiliation) from providing coverage which is inherently sexist. An employer has no right to deny an employee coverage, no matter how contrary to their conscience. Just reframe that point in a different light, would you say an employer who is a Jehova's Witness would have the right to deny their employees the right to a blood transfusion because their religion states that blood transfusions are contrary to their conscience? Anyone? I would love for an intelligent debate here. This is an important issue, and neither side has all the answers. The most imperative thing to do, if anyone is actually arguing for the sake of propelling this country in a direction which is beneficial for as many people as possible, is to discuss the problems openly and honestly. I'm going to flatly refuse to respond to anyone who only wishes to flame people who hold contrary beliefs to theirs, but I truly hope for some thoughtful responses.

      • Steve, OH says:

        See, to have an intelligent debate assumes that both people actually have facts and reasonable arguements that actually hold water. First, the statement about ectopic pregnacies is only a distraction. A tubal resection surgery to correct this condition is only an abortion if you wish to twist the words to match a political agenda. You would be hard pressed to find people in the medical profession or the insurance business calling that an abortion. As for the contraception issue, there are already inusrance plans out there that do provide that coverage, and people have the religious freedom to either purchase, supply or honor that coverage. With Obamacare, you lose that freedom, so to say it promotes freedom is ludicrous. On the "separation of church and state" issue, the coverage which you call "sexist" others call it "morally wrong". To have a government tell people what they can and can't object to on moral/religios grounds crosses that "separation", does it not?

        • @Driveswift says:

          Wrong Steve, the personhood amendments the pro-life movement has been trying to adopt would define the fertilized egg as a person, regardless of implantation. The sheer stupidity of that argument is easily seen when you do some reading, and learn that the majority of eggs that are fertilized don't implant. My doctor does in fact consider an ectopic pregnancy termination an abortion, and as I am very close to someone who actually needed one (the most awful and terrifying experience of her life thus far) and would have been handed a death sentence by people like Rick Santorum, I'm especially offended by people who think that my employer, a doctor, or my insurance company have a right to tell me or anyone else to just go die because it would violate their religious beliefs.

          • Steve, OH says:

            I'm not arguing that the personhood amendments are valid. That may be germane to a discussion about Roe v Wade, but it is a red herring when talking about a person’s right to choose what insurance they buy. Besides that, people are not saying you should "just go die" based on religion. You are responsible for your own actions and if you decide to purchase a plan without that coverage because of your religion, you will have to choose between dying or paying for the procedure yourself. Its no different than when people decide what deductibles, coverage levels and amendments to add when they purchase home or auto insurance. What we need is common sense personal responsibility, not the hyperbole you’re presenting.

        • @Driveswift says:

          Also why would anyone want an invasive surgery like a tubal resection that runs the risk of causing infertility, when abortion inducing drugs are safer, and do not have the same risk? It's more moral for you to cut a woman open and reduce her chances for a successful pregnancy in the future because you disapprove of a certain method of saving her life?

          • Steve, OH says:

            Because that's the only effective way to do it. Drugs only prevent the ovum from attaching to the uternine wall. They dont work in ectopic cases. Besides, An ectopic pregnancy is most often times a result of a blocked tube, as was with my wife. So don't go lecturing ME on morality and infertility!

      • Steve, OH says:

        And to top it off, your analogy with a Jehova's Witness is way off…. If you turn your arguement around, an employee has no "right" to demand coverage. A "job" is a contract between an employer and employee and businesses are free to offer whatever fringe benefits they want to attract good employees. If they make a stupid business decision to choose a restrictive health insurance plans that don't cover blood transfusions, they won't obtain or keep their employees and won't be in business for very long. Its called the free market, and our government should get the heck out of the way.

      • Steve, OH says:

        The bottom line, we're talking about a GOVERNMENT forcing the CITIZENS (from which it gets its authority no less) to do something against their religious beliefs. which is in direct conflict with our Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), as well as the religious freedoms given by the Constitution. These "thoughtful responses" expose your arguments as distractions and twisted logic, and I'm interested to see if you have any credible response, or if you will "flatly refuse" to accept reality.

      • Bobbie says:

        Abortion and contraception are brought on by an act of free choice. So preventive care of those two things would be abstinence!!! Where personal responsibility and self reliance plays a part at the expense of those personally responsible!

    5. Daniel says:

      Is this the time for civil disobedience en masse?

      • Bobbie says:

        it's just fascinating to me that this once beautiful country with all the world's people, led to this from unAmerican, anti principled leaderships!

    6. Alex says:

      Steve has presented the most cogent argument … it is indeed an issue of government coercion that is at the center of the debate on the HHS mandate and religious liberty. It's not just abortion, contraception and sterilization but freedom of conscience that is being violated and threatened by this mandate. As for classifying all use of Viagra or contraceptive pills categorically as a "health" is precisely how far we have come in this sad debate. These should never have been covered except in those very few cases where they are beneficial to the health of individuals … but certainly not wholesale or as a 'right'.

    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.

    ×