« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Trampling on the First Amendment: Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate

By: Brad Jackson (Diary)  |  February 14th, 2012 at 10:07 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Anna Franzonello to discuss the controversial contraceptive mandate in Obamacare, how it violates our freedom of religion, and what legislative and legal steps are being taken to challenge this mandate.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Americans United for Life Files a brief regarding the Constitutionality of the Abortion Mandate in President Obama’s Healthcare Law
The Audacity of Power: President Obama Vs. The Catholic Church
Obama: Violating Much More than Conscience
Anna Franzonello at AUL

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow AUL on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://insureblog.blogspot.com/ hgstern

    First, which birth control is actually covered? Generic? Brand name?

    Second, mandating coverage means eliminating all price pressure on the manufacturers. What does that do to the cost of health care and insurance?

    http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/wherein-free-gets-very-very-expensive.html

  • usedtobelib

    say, “If you don’t like the church’s or the prospective employer’s exceptions to what its health care will or will not cover, don’t take the damn job. No one is forcing you to work there in the first place.”

    • bonnman

      So employers have the option of not offering health insurance. The real issue isn’t the1st Amendment it is that the government is trying to regulate health insurance, and define it.

      • streiff

        the issue is the government is trying to define and regulate what qualifies as a religious organization. There isn’t a problem with the government either defining or regulating insurance. That is simply a business.

        • http://insureblog.blogspot.com/ hgstern

          “with the government either defining or regulating insurance.”

          That problem is the re-definition of risk-based insurance principles to wealth re-distribution methods.

        • bonnman

          that isn’t necessarily protected as a religious practice or belief. Religious organizations can be exempt from some laws but their affiliated businesses are not. For taxation purpose the IRS actually defines unrelated business income for non-profits so for example there are specific requirements for a Church to have bingo night, essentially running a gambling business, the Church can’t go off and build a casino in Vegas and expect to remain exempt. But it doesn’t really matter, religious practices can be regulated by government, consider Mormons and polygamy, I think thats why I don’t see this as a 1st Amendment issue and am more apt to argue that government should not regulate health insurance to this level.

  • lepelerin

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yZV7wFYeVK0

  • norris

    Who needs insurance for a two dollar trip to a drug store? It’s about control.