« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and the “Contraception” Issue: A Call to Unity

Almost a month ago, Mr. Obama launched his “contraception” campaign in a blatant attempt to win over women voters and to shift the debate away from economic issues.  Since that time, the left – and even some conservatives – have distorted the issue.  Some fiscal conservatives have missed the relevance of the issue completely.

The “contraception issue” is not about birth control or even social conservatism.  It is about whether the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights can be trumped by a “right” made up by the left out of whole cloth.  Obamacare requires religious institutions to pay for health insurance that will provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions.  Most Christian organization – at least those not corrupted by the leftist cult of death – oppose abortion.  The Catholic Church and other organizations oppose both abortion and contraception.  Yet, Obamacare, in the name of women’s health, will deny these institutions the right to the “free exercise” of their religion and thus to living out their religious beliefs.  If the first amendment can be invalidated by the left, then none of the other rights are safe.

The “contraception” issue is about economic freedom.  The power of the federal government has grown to the point where federal regulators can force a private company to provide the “benefits” the federal government dictates.  The federal government has invaded the contractual process and set itself up as the final authority.  The mere audacity of the move should make both employers and employees nervous because it removes the process from their control and makes it subject to the political winds from Washington.

The subversion of the contractual process by the federal government is nothing new.  However, Mr. Obama has made a blunder with his recent foray because the contraception issue is the perfect issue on which to unite both fiscal and social conservatives against Obamacare.

Many fiscal conservatives have largely missed this blunder.  Instead of welcoming a potential alliance with social conservatives on the issue, they have characterized it as a “distraction” and “a waste of time.”  They have written columns entitled:  ”Is the GOP spending too much time on social issues?”  Others have lambasted the church leadership because some of them supported Obamacare and are now just “getting what they deserve.”  This is insanity.

Fiscal and social conservatives should unite on this issue.  It is an all hands on deck type of emergency.  If the issue is lost or the churches are forced to cave in under the threats – such as the Vatican being placed on the list of potential money-launders by the State Department – then the whole conservative movement suffers.  Those religious institutions who originally backed Obamacare should realize that a federal government capable of taking over one-sixth of the private sector is one capable of suppressing religious freedom.  The only answer is full repeal of Obamacare.  Even if Mr. Obama should relent and issue a waiver to religious institutions, those religious institutions must press for full repeal.  Mr. Obama lies and the waiver is not worth the paper it is printed upon.  Just ask Bart Stupak.

Fiscal conservatives must realize that the issue is not simply a social issue but strikes at the heart economic liberty.  Nor is it a losing issue.  Two weeks after the launch of the campaign, Obama is at his lowest in the polls and sinking fast.  The “distraction” has proved to be a potent issue against Mr. Obama.  Women are not the simpletons that Mr. Obama thought and his pandering to the leftists like Fluke only makes him more toxic to anyone but the radical left.

Evangelicals and Jews should also stand together against the federal mandates and against Obamacare.  It is not merely a Catholic issue.  The mandate already applies to all religious institutions.  But the danger goes even further.  A federal government that can dictate that Christians must sacrifice religious beliefs on the altar of “contraception” and “women’s health,” can also dictate that kosher meals are not in the interest of “children’s health.”

The issue is so serious that resistance to Obamacare should proceed even to the direct defiance of the law.  Religious institutions like the Catholic Church should not close the charities nor should they comply with the new regulations and thus compromise their faith.  Nor should they pay the fines that come with non-compliance.

The Catholic Church and its bishops should stand firm and defy the law and the subsequent fines.  The Catholic Church and its Protestant cousins operate according – or at least it should – to the will of God. The Church does charity because Christ commands it. The Church opposes the murder of innocent children because it violates God’s law. The state has no authority to contradict the commands of God. See also Acts 4 and Daniel 6.

The Church should make its intent to defy the law plain, accept responsibility for their actions, and then set a date to turn themselves into the Department of Justice for imprisonment. Call a press conference on that date and let the American people see the Catholic Council of Bishops present themselves for arrest rather than submit. Let the American people see Protestant leaders stand in solidarity and submit themselves for imprisonment.

I sit on a board of a related agency affected by the new regulations. I would rather go to jail than submit. I will stand with the Catholics and the Protestants – just give me a time and place.

My fear is not that Mr. Obama and his minions will succeed against the church.  The church has survived much worse.  Mr. Obama will soon end up on the ash-heap of history along with all those who set themselves in opposition to God.  My real fear is that the church will submit and not fight.  But even then, God will preserve a faithful remnant.  He always has.

COMMENTS

  • Pingback: Carina Allmond

  • aesthete

    telling us to have a “national conversation” (???) about contraception, we’re not maximizing the opportunity to draw in both social conservatives and fiscal conservatives as you and I both agree would be useful and possible with this issue.

  • kipling

    He started off well discussing the economic nature of the issue but then went the “national conversation” route. He essentially adopted the liberal narrative that it was about contraception and then went with it. Conservatives must reject that narrative and focus on the First Amendment and economic liberty.

  • steve962

    …I don’t see anything in your post that actually makes a coherent argument that this *is* an economic issue. I haven’t really considered it an issue worth my time or effort, nor do I see it as impinging on religious freedom, because everyone is free to use or NOT use such services as their religious beliefs dictate.

    Yes, the federal government has grown enough to be able to force this kind of thing on private employers. I blame Republicans as much as the Democrats – the Bush years in particular were ridiculous in expanding the scope and power of the federal government (and Santorum a good part of it), and paved the way for Obama to continue the process. The Tea Party hasn’t helped matters here – IMHO, they have been just as bad as the Dems, and set back the cause of small government conservatism probably by decades.

    Now, as to the fiscal issues regarding Obamacare in general – I’m not a fan of Obamacare at all, and find it kind of appalling that it ever passed, but I’m practical enough to have seen the fiscal chaos which occurred in the medical industry due to it’s passing. I believe that efforts to repeal it entirely *without* addressing the additional fiscal chaos which will occur if that happens to be just as irresponsible as passing it in the first place.

    It makes much more fiscal sense for us to be analyzing it, figuring out which pieces made sense (and there *are* elements of it which were and are supported by both parties), figuring out what *doesn’t* make sense, and crafting an appropriate and sane replacement instead.

    However, I simply don’t see the contraceptive bit to be worth any effort on my part — it’s actually a losing strategy, IMHO, to be focusing on it in the presidential election.

  • kipling

    On religious freedom, the point is not whether someone “is free to use or not to use such services….” The point is that the federal government is making the church pay for those services for those who choose to use them. The church believes that abortion is murder. The federal government, through Obamacare, would force the church to pay for the murder.

    Based upon your second, third, and fourth paragraphs, I doubt you are a conservative at all. You claim to want small government but you think the repeal of Obamacare is not the right way to go. Instead you urge replacement. The small government solution is to get the federal government out of healthcare entirely. Replacement is the big government solution.

    The issue has led to a record low in approval ratings for Obama. It is hardly a losing issue.

  • steve962

    Honestly, I believe the federal government ought to be *completely* out of health care. I am, however, a realist — doing that in one sudden step instead of a gradual and carefully planned withdrawal would likely result in so much chaos in the medical industry (not to mention other sectors of the economy), the cure would be worse than the cause. I couldn’t see us withdrawing from the health care sector in less than a decade, and it might be better to phase things out over 10 or even 20 years to spread out the impact. (BTW, I believe in the same kind of slow phase out approach to things like Social Security…)

    Obamacare caused huge ripples in the economy and health care industries. I’ve seen and been affected adversely by some of those ripples personally. Just the *threat* of Obamacare caused havok in the insurance industry and resulted in huge issues – and the implementation of it is causing even more issues. You don’t think that repealing it willy-nilly without consideration would cause equally and potentially just as disastrous consequences? I expect there to be some awful consequences just from talking about repealing it completely.

    ANY action regarding Obamacare has to take into account the potential consequences. Doing otherwise is criminally irresponsible. I want it gone, yes, but I know that it has to be done in a gradual, carefully considered manner lest we again cause more damage than we fix. You replace it with something smaller, which is later replaced with something smaller, and so on until it’s gone – or replace it with something that phases things out on a timetable.

    (That said, I’ve begun to hate timetables in laws of late — I’d much rather see congress have to *act* to eliminate a law or change a tax rate, than have them have to act to prevent a law or tax rate from expiring. The latter is, IMHO, a bit of a cop out.)

  • YnotNOW

    when the Government is demanding that you pay for something that you oppose? Economics – the fruit of your own labors – your choice in how to spend them.

    As for piecemeal removal of ObamaCare – we need to repeal it before most of it’s aspects come into effect.

  • lapert

    All government spending that is funded by tax dollars is demanding that you pay for something you may very well oppose.

    There may be a legal distinction to be made when it is direct rather than via the taxman but there is no practical distinction.

  • kipling

    The issue is more simple than using tax money to pay for something someone may be against.

    In the case of these religious institutions, the government is mandating that religious organizations directly pay for abortion inducing drugs and contraceptives. In this case there is not even a middle man.

  • freedom555

    in the very short term.

    For instance, gay marriage is coming to all 50 states….in time….no matter if Rick Santorum or Dennis Kucinich is POTUS. Either way, there will be protest aplenty along the way but I don’t see the trajectory of public opinion changing.

    However, when it comes to debt management and the right economic stimulus Gov’t policy makes an enormous difference.

    That’s why I vote my economic interests…..and not my wishes for how I hope others to live.

  • kipling

    If you are voting as a fiscal conservative then you want the government to stop spending money on social program. You also are voting for those on social programs to end the entitlement mentality and become productive members of society. You are voting to change personal behavior.

    As to gay marriage, public opinion is against it in most cases. The only way it will advance is when social liberals push the issue and use the courts to trump the will of the people.

  • freedom555

    kipling, one of our shared goals.

    We perhaps part company when it comes to allowing gays to marry the partner of their choice.

  • kipling

    is hardly a limited government. A government that can impose its will on religious organizations is hardly a limited government. A government that can find a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution can easily find an right to fiscal entitlements.

  • lapert

    I mean I get that there can be some legal distinction but from a practical standpoint – why is it different? A middle man is just a sleight of hand, it doesn’t change what is being done.

  • YnotNOW

    It is worse to require me to pay directly for something I object to (i.e. requiring me to pay a $1 “surcharge” on my health insurance to cover abortion), that it is to use a portion of my tax money to pay for someone’s abortion. Both are morally wrong to me, and therefore I would fight either as an infringement on my values. But one is more directly involving me in evil. And that distinction makes a significant difference.

    There are some who object to any military in general, or the Afghanistan operations in particular, and they make their argument in the public square for their values. Yet national defense is one of the primary roles of government, and it must defend the whole country or not at all. So using taxpayer dollars for such a “general” need is valid, All can participate in the political decision on where and how much expenditure is desirable, but all are bound by the decision.

    Still, I would not force a pacifist to purchase bullets at their local gun shop and mail it to a soldier in Afghanistan. That is significantly different.