?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

As longtime readers know, I don't support Obamacare.  I think it's a bad idea that is going to spiral out of control and restricts too many individual liberties.

That said, I want to combat Obamacare by making the legislation better (the ideal option, since there are some things in there I like such as no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions) or having it voted down by something that at least resembles a "will of the people" type thing.  I don't approve of political subterfuge for things like this.

As Obamacare works its way through the Supreme Court to determine whether or not it is Constitutional, political types are using it as a political football to work the public into a frenzy and vote against Obama.  And they are doing it with that most offensive of political maneuvers, using the First Amendment as a shield.

Some of you may recall how a federal case was made a while ago where a pharmacist refused to dispense birth control pills because birth control is against his religious beliefs.  Well, a bunch of Republicans are reworking that argument.  Part of Obamacare is to guarantee that employees of religious affiliations can still get reproductive coverage, including birth control, regardless of the beliefs of their employer.  Obamacare has a provision that allows religious nonprofits to not have to provide birth control if it violates their beliefs.  There are now bills pending in the states of Idaho, Missouri, and Arizona seeking to extend the exemptions to secular insurers or pretty much anyone who objects to covering birth control (contraceptives, abortion, sterilization, etc.).

Carlos Bilbao (R) is a state Rep for Idaho, who says, "In its present state, the health care bill is an affront to my religious freedoms."  (Missouri State Senator Roy Blunt (R) says pretty much the same thing.)  YOUR religious freedoms?!?  What about MINE?!?  You are saying that I can only have religious freedom to believe what I want about birth control if I agree with you.  That's not freedom, that's coercion.  Can someone explain to me why people who claim to be protecting the Bill Of Rights are always doing things to restrict it?!?

I am free to believe whatever religious thoughts I want, right, wrong, or indifferent.  And my religious beliefs tell me that birth control is an individual's choice and responsibility.  You don't like birth control?  Don't use it!  That is as far as your influence goes.  You have no right to force your values on someone else and then cloak it under the cover of "religious rights."

And don't think this can't be abused.  Many of you know there are certain religious branches that refuse medical care, period.  Or oppose the Right To Die.  Or anything.  All it would take is someone hiring a case worker that believes the opposite of whatever the medical procedure is for, and they can object on religious grounds, denying the coverage.

This, of course, is not an election issue.  The states doing this are pretty much voting against Obama anyway.  But what it does is creates controversy, which gets it on the news.  And the R's can point to it as Obama using Obamacare to take away our freedoms.  Basically, they are using these bullshit issues just to win an election, it has NOTHING to do with doing the right thing.  It's publicity, not policy, using the very voters they are supposed to act in the best interest of as pawns.  And all by proposing an alternative that will violate our rights worse than what that alternative is supposed to fight.

I don't really support anarchy, but there are times when nobody being in control really appeals to me.

Latest Month

June 2019
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com