Wednesday, May. 25, 2016    Login | Register        

Losing our liberty

Cal Thomas's picture

“Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” — Thomas Jefferson

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” — Patrick Henry

Liberty is always tenuous. Those who enjoy it seem to be a minority in the world. That’s why liberty must not only be preserved by those who currently benefit from it; it must also be fought for and constantly renewed for future generations, because there are always those who wish to restrict or eliminate our freedoms.

The Obama administration’s ham-fisted attempt to require that contraceptives and abortifacients be offered to employees of Catholic and other religious institutions is a serious threat to our civil liberties.

Yes, federal (through EEOC oversight) and state governments already play this role and have for a time. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “Some 28 states have mandated coverage of birth control and 20 of those have some sort of exemption for religious employers.” New York and California are among the 28.

But do we really want government to continue to take the place of individual conscience? Should government continue to dictate to its citizens how to order and conduct their lives?

But wait. Didn’t President Obama give in to the concerns of Roman Catholic bishops by excusing Catholic institutions from paying for contraceptives and “morning-after” pills for their employees? Not exactly. The president disingenuously shifted the burden to insurance companies, which have now been ordered to offer the pills “free” to any employee who wants them.

Nothing is “free.” The cost will eventually be added to the price of the policies, which the employer will wind up paying for anyway. The cost will then be passed along to the employee.

The bishops weren’t fooled. After initially expressing “cautious optimism” over the administration’s “first step in the right direction,” they issued a statement, reports the Wall Street Journal, saying they still have “serious moral concerns” and cannot support the announced compromise, despite the fact that many thousands of religious institutions will be exempted from the mandate.

This issue was always about more than contraceptives and who pays for them. It is about individual liberty and whether the government under “Obamacare” has the constitutional right to dictate to private businesses and church-related entities when such orders violate conscience and religious beliefs. Would the administration also order a conscientious objector to engage in combat? It’s the same principle.

If the administration can get away with this, there will be no stopping it. If government can force an insurance company or institution to pay for a birth-control pill or a morning-after pill, it can, under the same authority, conceivably force them to pay for a euthanasia pill for those others have deemed unfit to live.

Too extreme? Most inhumanities begin with extremes. What is to stop the government from such behavior? If the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom is to be annulled, along with the already voided “endowed” right to life written into the Declaration of Independence, by what moral or legal authority can anyone stop government from doing anything?

This is more than a slippery slope; this is an avalanche and it threatens our most fundamental rights, without which we morph into something other than the America we have known.

Responding to the president’s remarks in which he pulled back on his insurance company mandate, Amy Ridenour, chair of the National Center for Public Policy Research, weighing in on the cost of providing contraceptive benefits, said, “Here’s the problem: The ‘savings’ substantially comes from pregnancy avoidance. That’s what religious-based opponents of the birth control/early abortifacient mandate objected to in the first place.”

There are two possible remedies: A decision expected this spring by the Supreme Court that Obamacare is unconstitutional, or a complete repeal of the health-care law, which would require a Republican Congress and a Republican president.

What other liberties does the Obama administration want to subvert? In his Super Bowl Sunday interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer, President Obama appeared to complain about the Founding Fathers, whom he suggested, “... designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.”

It’s called the separation of powers, Mr. President, and it was created to protect the nation from a dictatorial executive branch.

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at] ©2012 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.


stoke it Cal....what a whiner you are. Maybe you should query the opinions of females whose bodies are affected by dictatorial dark-aged edicts.
I do like the new anti-vasectomy law,currently being proposed in the GA. legislature .

PTC Observer's picture

can't have it both ways, if you disagree with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body when it comes to contraception, what right does the government have to tell you what health care insurance you should buy?? If you agree that the government has the right to manage your body, then it has the right to tell you you can't have contraceptives.

So, while you are complaining about dictatorial dark-aged edicts, look no further than The Affordable Health Care Act.

<strong>Demanding that the Government stay out of your bedroom and womb... While at the same time...demanding that the government pay for your birth control and abortions</strong>

<a href="

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content