• StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

« Catholic, Pro-Life, and Voting for Barack Obama | Main | BYU Professor Gedicks Answers Criticisms of Paper Detailing Weaknesses of Legal Challenges to Contraception Coverage »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Silly argument:

The mandate is a “religiously neutral, generally applicable” law that does not discriminate against religious employers, does not entangle government in disputes about theology or internal church governance, and does not “substantially” burden the free exercise of religion by nonexempt religious employers.

The mandate is a violation of a person's right to liberty in that it compels participation, not just in health care, but in insurance, for godssake! Insurance was not even in the Bible, was not so used at the time of the founding fathers, and does not appear in the Constitution as a federal function.

Under that principle, the feds could compel everybody to vet his sex partners, buy sex insurance, pay a penalty for sex in the wrong position, etc.

No, health care is a personal matter, as is sex, drugs and Rock & Roll. The gummint has no business messing in any of these, regardless of whether they be mandated in a religiously neutral, generally applicable and non-gummint-entangling manner.

The comments to this entry are closed.