ObamaCare's tyrannical fairness

Filed under 'In Case You Missed It.'

Appearing on Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night, the unflappable David Boies, of Bush v. Gore fame, calmly and damn near indifferently explained to his host that there is no -- repeat, no -- Constitutional, First Amendment issue at stake in the most recent Inquisition into 'Obamacare's' purported tyranny, this time over the Catholic Church's holy conscience.

(To digress, or perhaps I should say clarify: Yes, holy "conscience," as divinely revealed, for example, in the ecclesiastical expediencies of shuffling pedophiles or accommodating fascist regimes. Just so we all understand the terminology.) 

What is at stake? Labor law; the same labor laws that the Church and every other U.S. employer is obligated to obey. The Catholic Church, as Boies explained dispassionately, could not evade out of some presumed religious conscience the minimum wage or workers' compensation or a 40-hour week or any other universally applied labor law of a reasonable standard. The Affordable Care Act's contraception provision, as a required condition of employer healthcare coverage, is no different. The Obama administration has already compromised, the ACA has already exempted the Church itself, just as a variety of preceding state laws have -- which have never, not once, been an "issue."

To put it idiomatically, this is a no-brainer. Which is also why, of course, culture-warring demagogues like Rick Santorum and suddenly Mitt Romney and virtually half the U.S. House will ride it to absolute exhaustion.

Still, that's what demagogues do. That's what they're expected to do. And who among us cares to fritter much time in blaming lizards for crawling or bats for flapping or black widow spiders for mariticide?

Should we not, however, expect something a bit more honorable from the Church? -- you know, the one worried about its integrity and conscience?

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

One likely response to the Catholic Church's actions is to remind Evangelical Christians (especially those here in the South) that they are Protestant Christians.

The Religious and its current alliance with AIPAC is a house built on sand.

[Jim Milstein]

There are many who for reasons of religious belief and conscience oppose capital punishment and participation in military matters generally and war particularly. Should they be permitted to withhold their taxes? Not so far. Does this compelling of religious dissidents to pay taxes constitute a War on Religion also? Not so far.

[Peter G]

I never miss O'Donnell if I can possibly help it. I had wondered how the unanimous Hosanna-Tabor SCOTUS decision might relate but the issues adjudicated are completely different. The legally well supported ministerial exception seems to me to justify the unanimity of the court. With regard to this policy decision I can only say that Bishops howling about infringement on their religious rights strikes me as profoundly hypocritical in the light of the fact that it has always been their aim to impose their personal religious beliefs on every single women in America.

[jonolan]

Sorry, Jim. The churches of those objectors already withhold all taxes since they're tax exempt.

This is a straight-up war on Religion by the secularists of the Obama Regime. They want all Christian churches out of anything except being churches. They don't want religious schools, hospitals, charities, adoption agencies, or anything that might allow Americans to be less dependent upon the government.

We'll just have to see what happens. Heads of state and whole governments have been overturned in these struggles and, if he continues as he's been going, Obama's head isn't too firmly attached to his shoulders.

[Peter G]

Was it a religious war on churches, jonolan, when the twenty-eight other states that have similar rules, many with no exemptions at all, implemented them. It's amazing how many Republican state administrations, including Romney's in Mass didn't feel that way and still don't.

[Ansel M.]

jonolan: "a straight-up war on Religion"? ... what utter bullshit! (I'd prefer to comment more eloquently, but sometimes I just have to call 'em the way I see 'em!)

[Bruno]

Employers -- religious-based or not -- don't "pay for" contraceptive coverage, or any other type of coverage, in the insurance plans they provide. The money they spend is deferred wages (it would be extra salary otherwise) -- hence it's really the employee's money, not the incredibly wealthy, tax-exempt church's. The rest of the tab is picked up by subsidies from the federal government -- taxes.
Besides, not everyone can reject a job offer and peruse a file of alternatives just because they don't like St. Sebastian Senior Center's health plan. When the church is an economic player in the secular realm, running schools, hospitals and other major employers, it has to relinquish some of its holiness and play fair.
It's time for the bishops to stop their puerile, self-important bellyaching and get back to what they say they care about -- helping people. Free birth control helps people stay healthy and stay out of poverty, period. The "freedom" to flog medieval restrictions on condoms and diaphragms is a pathetic reason to go to war.
And I expect Obama will win a bigger share of the Catholic vote than he did last time. Most of the parishioners think the bishops are dead wrong on this.