Obamacare Survives the Supreme Court

by Steve Ray on June 28, 2012

The discussion is still swirling, but the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. It is not allowed under the commerce clause, but is viewed as a tax. This is a disaster for our country.

Chief Justice John Roberts is the one who tipped the scales for Obama. This will be how he is remembered in history.

Now we have to move against this indignity and insult to our freedoms. Let’s get a new president with conservatives in Congress to cut it out by the roots.

Many are discouraged and furious. What the court has done is done. What do we do now? Two things: 1) Use it to our advantage this Fall by rallying all those opposed to Obamacare (the majority of Americans) to get out and vote for a new president; 2) Continue to push the religious freedom angle which still has great weight and constitutional implications.

For Catholic Response and actions, click here https://www.stophhs.com/articles/andate-stands/

See the News Release below from the President of Ave Maria University:

Letter from University of Ave Maria's President Towey

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Henry Faith June 30, 2012 at 7:20 AM

I don’t understand why the Church plays politics. Christ set himself above politics every time he was tempted on a related subject. I suspect that was for a very good reason. Why can’t the Church follow that example?

Obama baited the Church with the contraception mandate and the Church took the bait. One bishop compared Obama to Hitler, others appeared on the all-male Congressional panel, and the response fell right into Obama’s plans. He defined the issue as a war on women, that’s what most people believe, and, in any event, the Church now has to answer those charges every time the subject comes up regardless of whether they’re true.

This could have been a teaching moment, an opportunity for the Church not just to assert its position, but to explain its position, to re-enforce the basis of our faith. An opportunity for the Church to stand above politics. Instead, what gets presented is accusations, indignation, and fear-mongering on the part of our religious leaders. This issue doesn’t equate to real religious persecution throughout the world and the Church looks foolish (and partisan) when it asserts that. False equivalence is a tool for craven politicians, not for our spiritual leaders. That falsehood undermines the Church’s credibility.

This problem is solvable by reasonable people, as it has been in numerous states that have already found a way to accommodate the views of the Church and still ensure workers have access to contraception. Or it is solvable in the courts. Instead, Church leaders have decided to turn it into a public relations circus that feeds their egos and our fears (and feeds women voters into Obama’s hands), but that ultimately puts the Church in a negative light.

It seems to me that the Church loses a little bit of credibility every time it associates with any politician, or whenever it gets involved in an issue that is defined in a way to purposely exploit differences in opinion and spread fear and anger, which is how most social issues are now framed. The Church could actually play a role in re-framing those discussions, by teaching a message that ultimately unites us, rather than accepting as fact the false issues defined by politicians for their own benefit.

It seems to me that, for Catholics in this partisan political atmosphere, every vote is an unacceptable compromise. Why, in supporting nominally pro-life candidates on the right, do Catholics have to compromise on other important aspects of social justice? Why, to promote our preferential love for the poor, do we have to vote for candidates who don’t understand that all rights are based on the right to life? Why does the Church accept and participate in an unnecessary partisan system? Our faith should be indivisible. Why can’t the Church promote candidates who refuse to compromise on any important aspect of our faith?

Healthcare reform highlights perfectly the Church’s problem: Politicians are creating new reasons every day for the Church to oppose an issue that it actually supports: universal access to healthcare. Instead of demanding the both sides compromise to realize the Church’s full vision of social justice, why does the Church take sides, compromising its own values in the process? We, as Catholics, lose when they do that. They, as defenders of our faith, undermine their own credibility when they accept compromise.

Jane Hartman June 30, 2012 at 6:13 PM

If the church doesn’t assert itself politically at this time, it will cease to be the church. It will have to fall prey to those leaders who mandate that it do something sinful. And that will be the first of many religious freedoms to go. I for one do not want hospitals, breadlines, and other charitable organizations run by the church to fold and there will be no other choice if the church doesn’t fight politically and spiritually.

Tom Govern June 30, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Unfortunately, this Obama “victory” and his play on hispanic illegals make hime unbeatable in November. Romney is a weak candidate at best and is not electable as he represents “money” that most people do not relate to. He is also non-Christian (being a Mormon) as is Obama so we don’t gain anything there. We need to face facts and concentrate on getting a majority in the both houses. It is so sad that if President Ford had nominated a conservative Supreme Court judge, all may have been different. Never the less, pray for our country. I am sure that we are not the only one disappointed throuth history. God help us.

Tom Schneck July 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

We can live with Obamacare, but not the HHS regulations that violate the conscience of individuals and institutions. The Supreme Court vote was close, 5-4, indicative of the national struggle with universal and socialized health care, but such exists in many other democratic countries. I believe that Justice Roberts followed his conscience on the vote and just as I want him to respect Catholic conscience, we must respect his conscience on his vote.
Our focus must now be on education on how the HHS regulations violate conscience and on litigation to protect our First Amendment right to the free exercise of our religion. We need to elect candidates that respect this and we cannot compromise with candidates who offer half a loaf in term of desirable, but lesser imperatives. Abortion and right to life issues are too sacred for placing individuals and institutions in positions where they have to compromise conscience or prove to the government that they are sufficiently religious to qualify for an exemption to the HHS regulations.

Henry Faith July 1, 2012 at 10:30 PM

The Church existed before there even was a United States. It existed under centuries of persecution in Europe and even here in the early years of our country. I have faith in our faith. If only our bishops would step back from politics and teach our faith.

I also have faith in our system of government. The courts will resolve this obvious violation of religious freedom (which isn’t the same as religious persecution). We don’t need a public relations circus to overturn this mandate.

People talk about how religion affects politics. We should worry instead about how politics affects religion. We need to keep politics out of our faith and not confuse the two.

The only mandate that matters is that we love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves.

Tom Schneck July 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The Church needs to have a voice. When there is something obviously morally wrong in public discourse and when governmental mandates require morally reprehensible actions that must be taken against the conscience of individual Catholics and Catholic institutions, then the Church must cry out. This is the duty of our bishops, it seems to me. We live in a democratic country and we need not endure persecution as occurred in Europe and even in Mexico, if we can prevent it by voting for candidates that can help us. So I don’t think that our bishops can step back from public statements involving morality on public issues and regarding positions of public officials or candidates. You can call that politics but it is done because we Catholics want free exercise of our religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution, so that we can practice the two great commandments.

Henry Faith July 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Tom,

Why can’t the Church follow Christ’s example and eschew politics (and help us focus on what is important)?

Or, if Christ’s example isn’t good enough for the Church, then why isn’t recourse to the courts sufficient to achieve its aims? You’re right, the free exercise of our faith IS guaranteed by the Constitution and our courts will protect those rights.

At a minimum, why can’t the Church do a better job in getting what it wants out of public policy, without compromising its integrity (Hitler? Really?) or the inviolate truth and beauty of its social doctrine in the process? The bishops clearly don’t know what they’re doing and they are playing into the hands of folks on both sides who use the bishops in various ways for their own partisan interests.

Steve Ray July 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Henry:

How can you be so naive as to think the courts will preserve our rights? Did they preserve the rights of the unborn? The Courts are made of flawed human beings and there is NO divine promise of protection. The Founders of our country never tired of reminding young America that the price of freedom was eternal vigilance.

God has given us unprecedented freedoms and we are remiss and will be guilty before God if we fail to preserve this in our Democratic Republic. Don’t pull the WWJD nonsense. We are given much and much will be required. I have grandchildren and I am responsible to do all I can for them and their future, on the earth and in eternity.

Henry Faith July 6, 2012 at 7:05 AM

WWJD nonsense?!

I guess now I understand the nature of this website. It appears to be for someone’s glorification, but not Christ’s.

Manuel Duron July 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Henry … do not forget that by “church” we mean ALL of us, including lay people. Our bishops are our leaders, and must defend our faith. And more so should we. I do support our leaders efforts and I must ask, what are WE lay people doing to protect our freedom of religion? We can be in politics and make a difference, if we did our job, if we were true christian Catholics, they would not need to fight this fight. What are you doing Henry to protect your family’s and friend’s freedom to believe in something that transcends government or politics? Since we all are the “church” (not just the bishops) I would like to read what are you doing to protect the church from attacks and persecution, that you rightly point, have always existed. And do not forget, Chris himself, although was not a politician, he faced the politicians of his time to defend the rights of HIS people, he faced unfair accusations and HE himself fought for us, died for us, and gave us eternal life through HIS resurrection. That in itself grant us our freedom of religion, to follow HIM and his teachings. And that is being threatened today. If you seek Christ’s glory, then you cannot allow HIS church to be attacked. I must follow my own conscience, I must stand for the church because I AM church, and so is anyone that believes to be catholic. So Henry Faith, would you stand for Christ to defend HIS church and seek HIS glory?

Leave a Comment

 

Previous post:

Next post: