So far much of the HHS debacle has been focused on the Catholic church and contraception along with people on both sides of the political divide believing that this is an assault on religious freedom.

Beyond the violation of religious liberty concerns there are some more mundane ones.

Though how we got here in the first place is simply because of Obamacare. Even if a religious exemption is returned concerning the mandate, this law is still intrusive. Every employer should have the right to choose or not choose a health care plan. If they choose a health care plan then they should had every right to choose how extensive it is as to what is covered. Employer supplied health care can in no way be seen a right. Access to basic quality health care is a universal human right and their are many prudential avenues in regards to his. Employers historically first started offering health care coverage as an incentive to draw people in the jobs market. The repercussions is that it is one more thing that people don’t realize the full cost of since they only pay some portion of it. If individuals instead got payed more and had to shop on the market for their own healthcare plan, this would have had the tendencies to drive down costs as their would be a limit to what people would pay out of their own pockets. For example LASIK surgery is relatively inexpensive and prices have come down due to the fact that it is not normally covered by insurance plans.

The biggest problem is that we are having the Federal Government dictating to both health care insurers and employers. This is just simply insane. Even without the moral concerns about the HHS mandate, people should be very upset about the government involvement. Though should we be surprised that a government which regulates the flow of our toilets and what kind of lightbulbs we can buy is going to intrude into every part of our lives? I wish it was indeed a nanny state since at least nannies can be fired.

Part of the debate is also indicative about how little people understand economics and the umbrella of “free” seems to mean about anything. Insurance companies are not benevolent organizations that increase coverage without increasing costs. Medical insurance rates like life insurance rates are based on factors that the majority of insurers will not be drawing expenses from their plans. Contraception itself is not healthcare and those who use contraceptives use it on a continuing basis and thus there are constant costs involved in covering them. Health insurance providers don’t have access to some cheaper version of contraceptives and coverage has a tendency to keep costs the same or to increase them. So “free” contraceptive coverages means everybody pays more, but individuals are reducing personal costs by making others pay for their use. Though this is a scruple that too many have no problem with. Add in also paying for the elective surgery of mutilation, otherwise known as sterilization, and you have increased insurance costs.

It is also ironic that talking point about so many people using contraception and yet they can not see the economic effect of so many people hitting on their health plans for it.

Legislatures apparently have a thirst for irony that can’t be slaked which is apparent by the naming of bills such as Obamacare being known as the “Affordable Care Act”. Raising costs for everyone of course makes things more affordable.

A government that is going to dictate to employers is of course also going to dictate to religious institutions since for them it is always the goal that matters and not the means. The Obama administrations specifically wanted to have contraception covered, including sterilization and so-called Plan B, so they found a way. The Constitution and of course religious liberty be damned.

I wonder what might also be the side effects of this. The government claims average cost of $600 per female contraceptive user. So will insurance companies demand women use Depo-Provera shots as a cost reducer? Or will there be increased pressure for sterilization that despite the initial costs might be cheaper than contraceptives during a normal lifetime of use? I can think of the example of Oregon refusing to pay for someone’s medicine, but willing to provide suicide medication. Maybe private insurers could not get away with this, but big government wants to take this over anyway and they would have no such qualms.

From the unbelievably dense episcopal files is retired New York Archbishop Egan self-congratulatory statement about his handling of sex abuse case. He actually rescinds an apology he made before in regards to sex abuse. Well in response I am also rescinding the little respect I had for him in the first place.

Mark Shea links to s Michael Brendan Dougherty documented post on the subject.

“I never had one of these sex abuse cases.” he said, before adding  pompously, “If you have another bishop in the United States who has the record I  have, I’d be happy to know who he is.” He also claimed that the Church had no  obligation to report abuse to the civil authorities.

These are lies, strutting around with pride.

The Church is required to report abuse, according to laws on the books  since the 1970s.

Bishop Egan ran a diocese that was notoriously dangerous for children.  Contrary to his claim, during his twelve-year enthronement at Bridgeport, Egan  repeatedly failed to investigate priests where there were obvious signs of abuse,  according to The Hartford Courant. His diocese had to settle the cases and  awarded victims some $12-15 million in damages.

Here is just one incredible case of negligence. According to  the Hartford Courant, in 1990, Egan received a memo about “a  developing pattern of accusations” that Rev. Charles Carr of Norwalk had fondled  young boys. Egan kept Carr working for another five years, only suspending him  after a lawsuit was filed, and then in 1999 making him a chaplain at Danbury’s  hospital.

How about another? The Connecticut Post also  reported that early in his reign, dozens of people came forward  to accuse Rev. Raymond Pcolka of Greenwich of sexual abuse and violence against  children. Egan claimed that the accusers were never “proved” to be telling the  truth. Well, Egan never even bothered to interview them and kept Pcolka in  ministry.

First you have to wonder if he realizes he says this in public. Even if your own ego is through the roof you might just evaluate how something you say is going to be tossed about by the media. The Cardinal instead proves why we had the abuse crisis in the first place.

“If you have another bishop in the United States who has the record I  have …”

Unfortunately I can point to many examples of bishops with the same record and they also had to pay out millions of dollars in damages to victims.

When the Cardinal says “I never had one of these sex abuse cases.” I guess he is correct since he had more than “one” of these cases.

There have been some great Cardinals for the Archdiocese of New York and Cardinal Egan has been the exception to prove the rule.

“Today, virtually all American women use contraception at some point in their lives.”

Nice to know the reasons HHS Secretary Sebelius gives for violating the 1st amendment of the Constitution. They had to balance voiding our religious rights with people getting their contraception paid for by people who consider it an intrinsic evil. Funny how whenever our rights come up to a balancing equation, the scale seems to be weighted against us. You can balance one persons rights against anthers and if you are doing so then you know on one side it is not a right. We have a right to free exercise of religion, not a right to forcing employees to buy specific coverage. You can not balance the rights of an employer with the wants of an employee. Though this whole situation is partly a result of employee healthcare plans partly paid for from the company they work for. This artificially keeps costs up since there is not the pressure to lower costs if each individual was in the market for their own health care insurance.

Plus you know any article that starts with the line quoted above is going to be bad. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” unless there are those in that religion that go agains their faith. You have religious freedom just as long members of the faith are perfect. Darn as a Catholic and a sinner I guess I lose out on that free exercise stuff.

The religious exemption in the administration’s rule is the same as the exemption in Oregon, New York and California.

Wow listing those states make me feel much better. Hey if blue state big government jerks are doing it, it must be okay.

And the president and this administration continue to support existing conscience protections.

At least the ones they haven’t rolled up yet since President Bush left office.

But birth control can also be quite expensive, costing an average of $600 a year, which puts it out of reach for many women whose health plans don’t cover it.

Well she even lies about the cost. As even Planned Parenthood notes the cost of the pills are between $15 – $50 a month which would make the average to be less than the maximum $600 a year she quotes. But again the cost has nothing to do with it. The Constitution is not a document with a graded pay scale attached to it when as to when it can become violated.

[Source]

As Catholic Vote reported:

Three years ago, 26 prominent American Catholics signed an online petition in support of Kathleen Sebelius’ nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Some of the signers are having second thoughts, but many are also doubling down in defending the indefensible.

On Thursday, January 26, Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit at Sunday Masses the following weekend in all military chapels. The letter calls on Catholics to resist the policy initiative, recently affirmed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for federally mandated health insurance covering sterilization, abortifacients and contraception, because it represents a violation of the freedom of religion recognized by the U.S. Constitution.

The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.

Archbishop Broglio and the Archdiocese stand firm in the belief, based on legal precedent, that such a directive from the Army constituted a violation of his Constitutionally-protected right of free speech and the free exercise of religion, as well as those same rights of all military chaplains and their congregants.

Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.

The AMS did not receive any objections to the reading of Archbishop Broglio’s statement from the other branches of service.

First off what should be noted its that this letter from the Archbishop seems to be exactly the same as the form letter sent out by the USCCB and subsequently forwarded by the large majority of American bishops. So what the Office of the Chief of Chaplains objected to was pretty much the same letter read out to most Catholics this week.

Now as to the objection to “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” being read in a military setting I don’t clearly see the point to the objection. Being a retired Navy Chief I am well aware of military problems concerning the political sphere as it interacts with soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. One of the things you learn in the military is that you must obey every lawful order and there has always been an emphasis on lawful in military context. This lines up perfectly with St. Augustines “An unjust law does not seem to be a law at all and what St. Thomas Aquinas also wrote on the subject. The HHS regulation is an unjust regulation in response to what is the unjust law of the Obamacare mandate. I see no dichotomy with the military not complying with an unjust law and fulfilling their oath.

Though the military is in a different situation when it comes to healthcare and unfortunately it is the case that all Americans are already paying for contraceptives used by military personnel along with sterilization. The military is quite a contraceptive culture in many ways especially considering the number of women also serving. It is expected that they contracept while on sea duty or deployed and there is quite a negative feeling towards women who become pregnant and must leave their current duty assignment. Plus of course the use of condoms has been pretty much an unofficial policy in that I heard it recommended constantly across the chain of command even before the days of so-called “safe-sex.” When I was an atheist serving in the military I felt this way myself and pretty much wished they would inject women with Depo-Provera on starting their sea duty tour. The contraceptive attitude is evil in itself as I well know. This attitude of mine developed since I served on the first carrier to deploy women and saw the many-fold disasters as a result. But this is not a rant on the subject deployed women in the military. Though I really think that women serving in the military in such capacity is founded pretty much on having access to contraception.

How this unjust regulation personally affects the military is in their private political sphere where just as any citizen they have the right to address their representatives, vote, and participate privately in the political process. So they have a right to hear an uncensored letter read to the majority of Catholics in the United States. The Secretary of the Army and other personnel involved had no right to question or have changed anything in this statement and their oath to defend the Constitution makes what they did even worse.

Kathryn Jean Lopez has been writing on the subject and keeping track of updates.