Today the University of Notre Dame filed a legal challenge against an Obamacare regulation that requires health care plans to include abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization procedures.

Many religious institutions, including Notre Dame, object on religious or moral grounds to providing, paying for, and/or facilitating insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and/or sterilization procedures.

If the federal government is permitted to “override our religious purpose” and “use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut [their] values,” said Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins, then religious organizations will become “mere tools for the exercise of government power” and “morally subservient to the state.”

Notre Dame’s lawsuit is one of 12 lawsuits filed today by 43 plaintiffs against the Obamacare regulation.

In addition, several other institutions have already filed lawsuits seeking protection for religious freedom.

Plaintiffs challenging the Obamacare mandate in court include Catholic institutions, Protestant institutions, business owners who are religious, and several state governments.

Further, one religious university recently announced it will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, because Obamacare would require the plan to include goods or services that violate the institution’s religious beliefs.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has called the Obamacare mandate an “unprecedented” violation of religious freedom by the federal government.

The mounting pressure highlights the ongoing potential for centrally driven health care policy to conflict with conscience. That leads to a longer-term question: whether religious institutions will be able to withstand the increasing crush of federal regulation that reaches ever more deeply into realms of private choice and decision-making.

The particular regulation challenged by Notre Dame and others is just one small part of a gigantic statutory and regulatory scheme that is still being implemented.

Those who seek to defend religious freedom should make common cause with those who defend freedom in general. A society that abandons its moral and political commitment to freedom in general will become less willing and even hostile to protecting religious freedom in particular.

President Obama’s has repeatedly promised to rein in the influence industry’s role in federal policymaking and access to top federal officials. But the president’s actions consistently belie his rhetoric, as a recent review of White House visitor logs demonstrates.

“[T]he lobbying industry Obama has vowed to constrain is a regular presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave,” the Washington Post reported on Monday. Visitor logs “suggest that lobbyists with personal connections to the White House enjoy the easiest access,” the Post adds.

The White House has consistently worked to circumvent its own pledge to exclude lobbyists from federal decision-making. In order to skirt visitor logs, for instance, staff began holding meetings with lobbyists at a coffee shop across the street. While the president pledged not to employ any lobbyists, White House staff includes at least fifty former lobbyists and government relations executives.

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee has found loopholes in its own pledge to finance the party’s Charlotte, NC convention without money from lobbyists. According to the Los Angeles Times, “organizers have found ways to skirt the rules and give corporations and lobbyists a presence at the nominating convention.

As the Post notes, President Obama’s actions stand in stark contrast to his populist rhetoric.

More than any president before him, Obama pledged to change the political culture that has fueled the influence of lobbyists. He barred recent lobbyists from joining his administration and banned them from advisory boards throughout the executive branch. The president went so far as to forbid what had been staples of political interaction — federal employees could no longer accept free admission to receptions and conferences sponsored by lobbying groups.

While lobbyists have a legitimate role in policymaking – they are agents of Americans’ First Amendment right to redress, after all – the administration appears to be granting disproportionate access to its political allies.

The White House visitor records make it clear that Obama’s senior officials are granting that access to some of K Street’s most influential representatives. In many cases, those lobbyists have long-standing connections to the president or his aides. Republican lobbyists coming to visit are rare, while Democratic lobbyists are common, whether they are representing corporate clients or liberal causes.

The Post offers a number of examples to back up its observations.

On January 1, 2013, the American people will be hit with the biggest tax hike in history. It’s known as “Taxmageddon,” and it will bring $494 billion in higher taxes resulting from tax policies expiring in seven different categories, on top of new Obamacare tax hikes taking effect. In a new paper, Heritage’s J.D. Foster gives five good reasons for Congress to take action to prevent Taxmageddon before it hits.

1. Families and small businesses should not be threatened by their own government with a devastating tax hike.
2. A massive tax hike would obviously devastate the economy in 2013 and beyond, but the uncertainty about how, when, and even whether Congress will prevent Taxmageddon is already adding to the large cloud of uncertainties hanging over the economy, threatening to slow job growth even further.
3. Congress has no excuse for threatening families and the economy with this tax hike with the entire summer legislative schedule wide open for business.
4. Many Members of Congress of both parties agree with President Obama on the need for fundamental tax reform. Allowing Taxmageddon to go into effect would raise tax rates while increasing the tax on saving and investment—the opposite of tax reform’s results. Even though positive reforms are extremely unlikely in 2012, Congress can prevent a severe case of sound policy backsliding and create more opportunities for exploring positive options for tax reform in the balance of the year by preventing Taxmageddon quickly.
5. Elections are referendums on past decisions and on the future direction of the country. Voters should be able to judge performance of their Members on more than just vague assurances. Those favoring raising taxes should have the opportunity to vote their beliefs while challengers announce their fidelity to higher taxes, and likewise for those favoring low taxes and limited government. Citizens can vote their beliefs based on solid information.

Read more of Foster’s paper, Preventing Taxmageddon Is Congress’s Summer Job, at Heritage.org.

On Saturday night, blind Chinese legal activist Chen Guangcheng arrived in Newark, N.J., after escaping seven years of persecution in China. With the sweet land of liberty under his feet, Chen breathed the free air and remarked, “We should link our arms to continue in the fight for the goodness in the world and to fight against injustice.” Chen’s newfound freedom is a cause for celebration, but it is also a reminder that America must continue to be a force for liberty in the world, whether on the other side of the world or 90 miles off the shores of Florida.

A 40-year-old self-taught lawyer, Chen was imprisoned for four years, placed under house arrest and suffered beatings after voicing opposition to communist China’s one-child policy, which brings with it government-forced abortions, coerced sterilizations, and fines or physical abuse for neighbors and family members of women with unauthorized pregnancies. Last month, he escaped the grip of Chinese authorities and found refuge in the U.S. Embassy. After a series of negotiations, Chen and his immediate family won their freedom — he is now a legal fellow at New York University Law School.

Chen’s case brings to light the reality of modern-day China — a country that has been radically transformed over the last 30 years thanks to economic development. But as much as the country has changed, much remains the same. Heritage’s Walter Lohman explains:

China is a place that has not changed since the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 when it comes to respect for the fundamental rights of its people. This is sometimes hard for the diplomats, scholars, businessmen, and tourists who spend time there to believe. Likewise, there are many privileged, worldly Chinese who fail to see it.

The People’s Republic of China is an authoritarian, yes, ‘communist’ nation. This China is Chen’s day-to-day reality. And it is a brutal reality for many hundreds of millions more. U.S.-China relations will never be normal as long as the Chinese regime is what it is.

Chen sees the Chinese government for the authoritarian beast that it is, and he has won international acclaim for his activism. “I am not a hero,” he said. “I’m just doing what my conscience asks me to do. I cannot be silent when facing these evils against women and children.” The United States should not be silent, either.

China, though, is not the only communist government standing in the way of freedom. Just off the Florida Keys, the Castro regime continues to hold an iron grip on the Cuban people. Yesterday marked the 110th year of Cuba’s independence, but sadly 53 of those years have been spent under the Castros’ dictatorship. Political opposition is not tolerated, those who stand against the regime are harassed and persecuted, all forms of media and communications are under government control, and freedoms of speech and association are suppressed.

There is hope for Cuba. In a new paper, Heritage’s Ray Walser writes that the Castro regime is on the verge of extinction but is working to ensure the country’s communist system continues. He advises that the United States should stand for freedom and press for genuine democracy in Cuba. That means not appeasing the dictatorial regime, backing genuine economic transformation, challenging Cuba’s information blockade, and establishing clear yardsticks for democratic change, including independent political parties, free and fair elections, freedom of information, expression, and association, and respect for human rights.

“Failure to stand with the advocates of genuine economic and political change in Cuba and to press for a policy of true transition and genuine democracy could condemn yet another generation of Cubans to lives without freedom, opportunity, or hope,” Walser writes. Indeed, the United States can be a powerful force for freedom — whether it’s for one Chinese activist standing up in a country of one billion, or if it’s for one tiny island surrounded by a vast ocean. But America must choose to stand up for the light of liberty, not turn away from the darkness.

Quick Hits:

• Protests of the NATO summit in Chicago turned violent on Sunday, leaving dozens injured. Occupy Chicago, which helped planned the demonstrations, is organizing another protest this morning.
• Back in 2007, Barack Obama campaigned on the pledge that lobbyists “won’t work in my White House!” But The Washington Post reports that a steady stream of lobbyists flows in and out of the White House with regularity, finding that “Obama’s senior officials are granting that access to some of K Street’s most influential representatives.”
• The much-anticipated Facebook initial public offering fell flat, and now it’s being reported that the Nasdaq Stock Market, which handled the trading, suffered technology problems affecting trading in millions of shares.
• A suicide bombing in Yemen killed at least 101 soldiers on Monday and injured 70 others. The soldiers were preparing for tomorrow’s National Day of Unification ceremonies.
• NPR, PBS and other public broadcasting outlets are asking taxpayers to fork over $445 million in funding for the next fiscal year, yet liberals say the subsidy is “tiny.” Read more about it on The Foundry.

Americans are facing an unprecedented $494 billion tax hike on Jan. 1, 2013. It’s been dubbed “Taxmageddon” given the economic devastation it would cause.

Conventional wisdom suggests lawmakers in Washington will wait until the 11th hour to come up with a solution. Fortunately, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced last week he won’t wait for a lame-duck session of Congress. From his speech to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2012 Fiscal Summit:

Tax hikes destroy jobs – especially an increase on the magnitude set for January 1st. Small businesses need to plan. We shouldn’t wait until New Year’s Eve to give American job creators the confidence that they aren’t going to get hit with a tax hike on New Year’s Day. Any sudden tax hike would hurt our economy, so this fall – before the election – the House of Representatives will vote to stop the largest tax increase in American history.

The bulk of Taxmageddon comes from expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, but also means the child tax credit will be cut in half, the Alternative Minimum Tax patches end, the Death Tax returns to its 2001 level, and a handful of new Obamacare tax hikes take effect.

Here’s the outlook under Heritage’s Federal Budget in Pictures:

If this isn’t enough to scare you, then the prospect of waiting until after the November election should be. Here are five good reasons from Heritage’s J.D. Foster why Congress should act now:

1. Families and small businesses should not be threatened by their own government with a devastating tax hike.
2. A massive tax hike would obviously devastate the economy in 2013 and beyond, but the uncertainty about how, when, and even whether Congress will prevent Taxmageddon is already adding to the large cloud of uncertainties hanging over the economy, threatening to slow job growth even further.
3. Congress has no excuse for threatening families and the economy with this tax hike with the entire summer legislative schedule wide open for business.
4. Many Members of Congress of both parties agree with President Obama on the need for fundamental tax reform. Allowing Taxmageddon to go into effect would raise tax rates while increasing the tax on saving and investment—the opposite of tax reform’s results. Even though positive reforms are extremely unlikely in 2012, Congress can prevent a severe case of sound policy backsliding and create more opportunities for exploring positive options for tax reform in the balance of the year by preventing Taxmageddon quickly.
5. Elections are referendums on past decisions and on the future direction of the country. Voters should be able to judge performance of their Members on more than just vague assurances. Those favoring raising taxes should have the opportunity to vote their beliefs while challengers announce their fidelity to higher taxes, and likewise for those favoring low taxes and limited government. Citizens can vote their beliefs based on solid information.

Conservatives should applaud Boehner for seeking a solution sooner rather than later. But without action from the do-nothing Senate, there’s little hope of stopping this enormous and unprecedented tax increase before November.

During the NATO meeting in Chicago, the alliance will declare that it has an interim operational capability to defend itself against ballistic missile attacks. This is a major step forward for NATO and U.S. leadership within the alliance.

The declaration marks the achievement of the first phase in the Obama Administration’s European Phased Adaptive Approach missile defense plan. This interim capability is based on the Aegis missile defense system and its accompanying Standard missile defense interceptor called the Block IA, which is deployed on U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers. This is a system that has demonstrated its capability in numerous intercept tests.

As the term “interim operational capability” implies, however, this system is very limited in scope and needs to be expanded both qualitatively and quantitatively. The major shortcoming is that the capability does not extend to defendingU.S.territory against long-range missile attack. An earlier architecture, proposed by the George W. Bush Administration, would have provided for a defense of U.S. as well as European territory by fielding ground-based midcourse defense interceptors inPolandand an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic.

This option, which also included the Aegis system, was canceled by President Obama in 2009 in order to appease Russian objections to it. This interim capability leaves U.S. allies more vulnerable to missile attacks than the technology would otherwise permit, because the Aegis missile defense system could have been made more capable than the one in place today by providing it the ability to counter long-range missiles in the late midcourse phase of flight.

Despite this decision, the Russians continue to object to U.S. and NATO missile defense capabilities. The Obama Administration in particular has responded to Russian objections by attempting to persuadeRussiathatU.S.and NATO missile defense will not pose a threat to Russian missile-based nuclear forces. This approach to diplomacy toward Russia is misguided for at least the following four reasons:

1. The purpose of any missile defense system is to counter an offensive missiles only after they have been have been fired. They are inherently defensive and do not pose a threat to anyone.
2. The U.S. in particular has described its diplomacy toward Russia regarding missile defense as an attempt to find a cooperative arrangement where Russia will participate in a broader missile defense system. Genuine missile defense cooperation withRussiawould be desirable, but the current approach is about cooperating to limit the overall capabilities of the missile defense system. The Russians have made it clear that this is how they view it, and U.S. diplomacy has only served to reinforce this view.
3. Missile defense itself is not at the crux of the impasse withRussia; it really stems from Russia’s view that its national security depends on its ability to threaten the U.S. and its NATO partners with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles—and most particularly those NATO countries that reside within its asserted zone of privileged interests. This Russian view should be unacceptable to all NATO countries under any circumstances, and the alliance should not be shy about stating this to the Russians.
4. This diplomatic approach fails to recognize that the proper way out of the current impasse is to persuade Russia that fundamentally defensive strategic postures are in everybody’s interest. The U.S. and NATO should have no objections toRussiamaintaining a capability to defend itself, even in the context of an unjustified perception byRussiathat the U.S. and other NATO countries are intent on committing acts of aggression. This is because the U.S. and NATO have no such intention and do not build their forces for such a purpose. The success of this diplomatic approach depends on Russia renouncing any aggressive intent toward the U.S. and NATO.

Given present circumstances, NATO leaders should use the Chicago meeting to affirm that alliance members, both individually and collectively, intend to defend themselves against missile attack by pursuing the most capable missile defense system technology permits. They should also challenge the Russians to join them in adopting fundamentally defensive strategic postures, where genuine cooperation in the field of missile defense will naturally be a central component.

Activist Chen Guangcheng and his immediate family are out of China. This is a good thing, and the Obama Administration deserves credit for making it happen.

There will be plenty of opportunity for the American political system to assess the Administration’s initial handling of the matter and what it says about its foreign policy priorities. There are certainly lessons there to be learned.

Today, however, is not an occasion for a policy debate. It is a time for Americans to welcome Chen and his family to freedom in America, to pray for the safety of his extended family and friends back in China, and rededicate themselves to a foreign policy focused on liberty.

It is also time to see the People’s Republic of China for what it is. China is a place that economic development has materially transformed over the last 30 years, a real player in the global economy, and a force to be reckoned with in international politics. China is America’s rival for influence in East and South Asia; it is also occasionally a collaborator in containing the impact of the rivalry.

China is also, however, a place that has not changed since the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989 when it comes to respect for the fundamental rights of its people. This is sometimes hard for the diplomats, scholars, businessmen, and tourists who spend time there to believe. Likewise, there are many privileged, worldly Chinese who fail to see it.

Chen Guangcheng, blind since childhood, sees the truth. The cause he has risked his life for—ending state-enforced abortions pursuant to China’s one-child policy—is one of the most horrid manifestations of China’s debasement of individual liberty.

The People’s Republic of China is an authoritarian, yes, “communist” nation. This China is Chen’s day-to-day reality. And it is a brutal reality for many hundreds of millions more. U.S.–China relations will never be normal as long as the Chinese regime is what it is.

But there is another truth involved here. It is America’s. The reality is that, contrary to officials’ assertions, Americans’ love of liberty means that the gears of U.S.–China relations—or relations with any other country, for that matter—can and should be shut down over concern for the plight of one man. And if at any point it is not clear that the United States still remains the world’s greatest hope for the oppressed, both our friends and rivals should know that it is only a temporary state of affairs.

NPR, PBS and other public broadcasting outlets are asking taxpayers to fork over $445 million in funding for the next fiscal year. But not if Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) have anything to say about it.

The conservative lawmakers want to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the steward of the federal government’s “investment” in public radio and TV. Congress created CPB in 1967, and DeMint and Lamborn think it’s time to cut it off from the federal trough. Their move comes as the agency prepares to report to Congress how it could operate without a federal subsidy.

“While so many Americans are making sacrifices around the country to make ends meet, CPB appears unwilling to do the same,” DeMint and Lamborn wrote in a letter to Senate and House appropriators. “Now is the appropriate and necessary time for the government to end taxpayer subsidies for CPB.”

Liberals are fighting back to keep the money flowing. The special-interest group Free Press, which advocates for greater government control over media and the Internet, claims the federal subsidy is necessary to save public-broadcasting jobs.

This tiny federal investment is vital to helping support programming that commercial media won’t showcase and provides an important foundation for stations around the country to build on.

DeMint and Lamborn don’t consider it such a “tiny federal investment,” particularly given the rapid growth of public broadcasting’s federal subsidy in the past decade. Writing on DeMint’s new Pickpocket blog, Amanda Carpenter noted:

Even though media has become more accessible than ever, funding for CPB has exploded. Between 2001 and 2012, the CPB’s appropriated funding escalated by nearly 31 percent, from $340 million to $444.1 million.

This, of course, isn’t the first time public broadcasting faced a fight over its federal subsidy. Previous attempts to cut off funding came in the wake of Juan Williams’ firing from NPRand James O’Keefe’s exposé of an NPR executive’s disparaging remarks about conservatives and Tea Party activists. The funding cut was also part of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s YouCut initiative.

The O’Keefe exposé also revealed that NRP’s own senior vice president for fundraising admitted that NPR “would be better off in the long run without federal funding.” More than a year later, the American people are still on the hook.

When NATO leaders meet this weekend in Chicago, they are expected to announce an Interim Missile Defense Capability in Europe.

This announcement might read well in the summit’s declaration, but a lot more will need to be done before the members of the alliance will be protected from the ever-increasing missile threat.

According to NATO’s strategic concept, “The greatest responsibility of the Alliance is to protect and defend our territory and our populations against attack, as set out in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.” This core tenant is what has made NATO the most successful military alliance in history. As global threats change, NATO must adapt too. As ballistic missile technologies proliferate, ballistic missile defense (BMD) is not a luxury for NATO but a necessity.

NATO has made some progress, but it still has a long way to go. It has expanded its Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense program, a command-and-control backbone of the alliance’s theater missile defense system and future layered missile defense system.

At the Chicago summit, the U.S. and its allies plan to declare that NATO has achieved an interim capability in ballistic missile defense. The first steps in implementing the Phased Adaptive Approach, President Obama’s missile defense plan for Europe, will be part of this capability.

In the past year, Turkey agreed to host the X-band radar on its territory, and the radar is already operational. Romania and Poland agreed to host land-based interceptor sites in the future, and Spain will host U.S. BMD-capable ships.

Missile defense is an area where NATO’s Smart Defense initiative could actually produce benefits for the alliance as a whole. France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain have their own short-range missile defense systems. The Netherlands, Germany, and France are also exploring options to contribute sensor capabilities and early warning. With relatively modest investment and adaptation, these platforms could eventually form part of NATO missile defense capability.

NATO should continue to advance its missile defense program. This could include jointly developing missile defense systems, establishing interoperable command-and-control systems, resolving political and military issues associated with command-and-control, and preparing operational plans in case the alliance is attacked. NATO will need to further define key missile defense capability requirements and the assets required to achieve them.

In addition, NATO will need to explore options to field a variety of land-, air-, sea-, and space-based systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles in all three stages of flight: boost, midcourse, and terminal.

While the announcement of NATO’s Interim Missile Defense Capability in Europe is welcome, this is only the first step in a longer process. NATO leaders need to stay committed to missile defense for the long haul. The security of the alliance depends on it.

At the NATO Summit in Chicago this weekend, leaders will gather to discuss a number of issues facing the alliance. Top of the agenda will be Afghanistan, improving NATO’s military capabilities, and extending NATO’s partnerships with regional and global partners. However, nothing agreed at the summit will matter if America’s European allies do not start spending what is required on defense.

Defense spending inside NATO is increasingly declining. As Libya and other NATO campaigns have demonstrated time and again, Europe relies too much on the U.S. to pick up the slack during alliance operations. This is mainly the result of reduced defense investments by NATO members since the end of the Cold War and the lack of political will to use military capability when and where it is needed.

Since 2008, the 16 European members of NATO have reduced their military spending. Reductions in many NATO countries have exceeded 10 percent. In 2011, just three of the 28 NATO members—the United States, Britain, and Greece—spent the required 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. As expected, France fell below the 2 percent mark in 2011. Even Spain, with the world’s 12th largest economy, spent only 0.9 percent of GDP on defense in 2011.

To put this problem into perspective, New York City spends more on policing ($4.46 billion in fiscal year 2011) than 13 NATO members each spend on their defense.

However, on a positive note, Estonia claims it might reach the 2 percent requirement this year.

At the summit, NATO is expected to unveil a number of “Smart Defense” initiatives to help solve this problem. Smart Defense aims to encourage allies to cooperate in developing, acquiring, and maintaining military capabilities in a more economically efficient manner in an age of defense cuts.

While the aims of Smart Defense are noble, there is a concern that the initiative is likely to amount to little beyond a list of aspirations if Europeans invest no new money in defense. The language describing Smart Defense may read well in a summit declaration, but until real money is invested and delivers real capabilities to the modern-day battlefield, it will be meaningless to the men and women on the front lines. To work, Smart Defense requires real military capability and real money. No clever nomenclature can evade this problem.

Many leaders in Europe say that the first duty of government is the defense of the realm, but few leaders actually implement this view in practice. Spending is about setting national priorities, and Europeans have become complacent about their own defense and overly dependent on the U.S. security umbrella. Sadly, with President Obama’s defense cuts, the U.S. is not leading by example.