RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY

By Sarah Torres

President Barack Obama is considering granting a broader exemption to religious organizations from rules that require health insurance issuers to provide women with free contraceptives – including those which cause early abortions – sterilizations and related education and counseling, all of which are prohibited by the Catholic Church.  Catholic Belmont Abbey College is suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule, and more than 18 Catholic colleges and groups have written HHS protesting the rule.  Many Protestant groups can also be expected to object to the mandate because of their objection to contraceptives which cause early abortions.

The current rule, implementing Obamacare, exempts religious organizations whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values and that employ and serve primarily persons who share those religious beliefs.  The organization must also be non-profit as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.

Religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges are not exempted under the rule.

For most religious organizations, the inculcation of religious values is only one purpose, and many of them employ and serve people who do not share their beliefs.  As the Becket Fund points out, religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges have a long history of feeding the hungry, educating children, providing medical care in hospitals, and providing other much-needed social services to those who need them most.

Without a true exemption for religious organizations, the rule violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Religious groups’ refusal to support contraceptives, including abortifacients, and related counseling, constitutes a religious exercise.

The rule also violates religious organizations’ First Amendment freedom of speech rights by forcing them to pay for education and counseling that conflicts with their religious beliefs and teachings against pre-marital sex, contraception, sterilization and abortion.

“A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government forces him to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounced,” says Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represents Belmont.

The penalty for non-compliance – heavy yearly fines and a prohibition on offering health plans altogether – would put religious groups at such a competitive disadvantage to attract sufficient staff and students that they could be forced to close, says the Becket Fund, leaving many of the poor without needed services.

The New York Times reports that Democrats in Congress object to broadening the exemption, saying it would keep contraception out of reach for millions of women.  NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan has said, “Birth control is essential for women’s health,” according to the Washington Times.

Even if free contraceptives are essential to women’s health, obtaining them does not depend on forcing religious groups to provide them against their sincerely held moral convictions.  Those who truly cannot afford contraceptives can either obtain them at family planning clinics funded by Title X of the Public Health Service Act or move to a non-objecting employer or college.

All employers, whether operating for profit or not, and whether or not they serve or employ people who share their religious beliefs, have a Constitutional right to the exercise of their religion unburdened by the government.  Insurance companies have a right not to offer such coverage, and individuals have the right not to enroll in such coverage.

HANDS OFF TALK RADIO

HANDS OFF TALK RADIO
By Bob Ward

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting in response to conservative domination of talk radio.

Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, complains that, “Talk radio is running America and we have to deal with that problem." Talk radio allows the people of America – those unrepresented by a trade association, a lobbying firm, an advocacy group, a labor union or other organization – to make their opinions public and to generate support for their positions.

We are entitled to ask why Trent Lott considers that “a problem” and who does he think should be running America if not the people. We would also be interested in knowing what he means by dealing with this so-called problem. Does he mean that lawmakers have to learn to live with and take into account talk radio, or does he mean to eliminate the “problem?”

Whatever Lott has in mind, there are politicians who would restore the Fairness Doctrine – repealed during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. If they succeed, it would put and end to talk radio. Radio stations would be subject to endless complaints and nitpicking from interests who feel their position has not been given fair treatment. This would allow the politicians to do whatever the special interests pay them to do without having to listen to a lot of guff from the riff-raff.

The Federal government must regulate those aspects of broadcasting that must be regulated for broadcasting to function. If two radio stations broadcast on the same frequency, neither would be heard and understood by listeners. Clearly, frequencies must be assigned and the assignment must be enforceable and that means government has to do it.

But this is strictly a technical issue and has nothing to do with the contents of a broadcast. Federal authority to regulate content rests on a lie – the claim that the “airwaves” belong to the public – “public” being a euphemism for the government. This is a weak peg on which to hang so much government power. And it raises two questions: 1. What is an “airwave,” and 2. How did the government come to “own” them.

The first is easy. There is no such thing as an “airwave.” What you hear when you turn on your radio is a signal generated by privately owned electronic equipment. It travels through a vacuum as well as through air. “Airwave” is a fiction. That signal is a form of radiant energy, like light. And, like light, nobody owns it.

The assertion that the “airwaves belong to the public” is a lame fiction and no basis for disregarding the First amendment to the Constitution.

Federal power over who can say what on the radio has also been based on language in the1927 statute conferring on the Federal communication Commission authority to license broadcasters to operate on specific frequencies. The rationale is that because the licensee is granted the exclusive right to use a particular frequency, the law requires that the station operate in the public interest.

Even this is an overreach. Who determines what programming is or isn’t in the public interest. How about the public? If we compare the public’s response to Rush Limbaugh to the public response to Air America it’s pretty clear where the public interest lies.

Vaporous phrases like “the public interest” and fictional entities like “airwaves” simply cannot stand against the hard language of the First Amendment. What part of “Congress shall make no law . . .” do these gentry not understand.

Democrats Attack Our Free Speech Rights

Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Massachusetts) has introduced H.R. 2093 that will harm the rights of citizens to receive information about and criticize Washington.

Please call your United States Representative today and tell him or her to oppose H.R 2093, the Meehan grassroots bill. Go here to find contact information for your U.S. Rep:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

And please forward this email to as many people you can today, and ask them to act quickly.

The House Democratic leadership is keeping their timing under close wraps, but congressional staffers have said this unconstitutional bill may be considered by the Judiciary Committee as part of lobbying reform as early this Friday, but more likely next week. If it gets voted out of committee, then it goes to the floor of the House.

Whatever day HR 2093 is considered, it’s important to start calling Congress now, and forwarding this email alert now to help get more callers to oppose this bill.

The Meehan bill will regulate citizen-supported grassroots causes. What would trigger this new law? Citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights to (1) speak, (2) publish, (3) associate and (4) petition the government. It even will regulate some religious activity.

But get this. It will help big special interests, billionaire George Soros, and even big-time lobbyists themselves. The bill was written by lobbyists, so it will, of course, protect them and their clients.

My letter this week to Congressman Meehan shows how our First Amendment rights are being done in by secret dealings with insider lobbyists and Mr. Meehan’s own lawyers.

http://www.grassrootsfreedom.com/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?action=view&CMSArticleID=1381&CMSCategoryID=23

Dozens of grassroots organizations joined by the ACLU have signed a letter opposing the Meehan bill, H.R. 2093.

Grassroots causes would be required to tell Congress what they’re talking about in private communications to you and other citizens – often before they even say it.

This is very bad legislation. It is actually dangerous to our democracy because it attacks our basic freedoms to speak and criticize government.

The grassroots bill was defeated in Senate earlier this year, 55 – 43.

Now citizens must tell the House of Representatives that the First Amendment means what it says, “Congress shall make no law . . .”

So please, call your U.S. Rep today.

Tell him or her to vote against H.R. 2093, the Meehan grassroots bill.

And please forward this email to as many people as you can today, if you can.

Thank you.

Mark Fitzgibbons

GrassrootsFreedom.com