Posted on 02/18/2012 11:05:37 AM PST by John Semmens
The recent flap over the Obama Administration’s edict that all employers must provide birth control, including abortifacients, as part of heath insurance benefits for employees has given us a “teaching moment,” says representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.).
“We have established the fundamental principle that employers may not force their views on employees by refusing to cover the costs of birth control measures,” Wasserman-Schultz crowed. “The days of employer oppression of employees are over. The government has stepped in to defend the working class.”
The Congresswoman dismissed complaints that the Obama Administration’s move wrongfully violates individuals’ rights to act in accord with their own consciences. “We had an election in 2008,” she pointed out. “Obama won that election. He has a mandate from voters that overrides the supposed individual right to freedom of conscience. This is what democracy is all about.”
“In contrast, employers have no mandate to decide what they will or won’t pay for if elected authorities say otherwise,” she continued. “Obligations to invisible deities or claims of purported ‘inalienable rights’ cannot be used to set aside one’s responsibility to obey the laws laid down by our President.”
In related news, a quartet of Senate Democrats denounced a Republican initiative aimed at protecting the “right of conscience” to not be forced to participate in a government program that they believe to be morally wrong. “We can’t have people deciding for themselves whether they ought to be required to participate in funding someone else’s birth control or abortion rights,” declared California Senator Barbara Boxer. “This would put anarchic individualism ahead of social welfare. It would set the country back 200 years.”
Ironically, it was a little over 200 years ago that the First Amendment to the Constitution barred the government from interfering with an individual’s right of conscience.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://azconservative.org/2012/02/18/congresswoman-clarifies-who-is-entitled-to-impose-values-on-others/
Excellent!
Except when it comes to gay marriage ballot initiatives. For those, Democracy doesn't count.
Too close to reality again... another good one John.
Good satire. Again, hard to tell from the actual stance of the administration. I could see them actually publishing this.
Y’know, employers can just STOP covering employees. I don’t think there is a law that says them must offer health insurance.
I’d sure miss it though. I rather like the massive “buying power” my employer has and I don’t think a raise from the corp. would compensate for losing that.
heh, heh. This is really quite good.
Got it.
Employers may not force their views on employees, but the government MAY force it’s view on employers.
King George III would have liked this. Very much.
many a truth were spoken in jest.
It has gotten to the point that I have to look at the author before reading any “news” article anymore involving a political issue. Reality and satire have become nearly indistinguishable since January 2009.
*In contrast, employers have no mandate to decide what they will or won’t pay for if elected authorities say otherwise*
______________________________________
That is chilling.
I don’t think she would say “invisible deities” because DISTRICT. ;)
Now, WE are the oppressors!!!
Incidentally, this stuff ceased to be funny a long time ago, largely because the subject itself ceased to be funny. Debbie Wasserman-Test is probably not stupid enough to come out and say everything you have attributed to her ... but we all know she's thinking it.
Anything connected to that crazy nitwit woman, even in satire, is not worth wasting time reading.
Much more so when the question asked is Who is entitled to impose values on others?
In our Republic, the answer is simple : nobody.
Leadership is guidance not imposition.
There are a few issues that seriously need to be discussed as a nation and as a society. Another is who is empowered to define what is the "fair share" for everyone else?
Not any legislature, and certainly no kleptomaniacal megalomaniac sociopath. The people decide. No matter how long it takes.
There are a dozen more, but they all must be answered, but NEVER by a professional politician!
The core of every evil in the world, and our society is Government.
Without exception. Even if you look into the Federal Reserve. The Government’s Treasury (Ran by Ron Paul) makes a TON of revenue from the Fed by selling worthless slips of green paper to the reserve at face value. Thus, printing less $1 bills and more $100 bills makes the government rich.
The government is the heart of simply every problem.
The wild-haired nut speaks!
Debbie, you lost your cushy job because you're criminally insane? You haven't figured that out yet?
You think that you, or any other libtard is empowered to impose values on the rest of us?
Go have another drink.
That's why we have a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights.
Nowhere in those two documents do I find any hint that "values" is a power granted to the legislature, NO MATTER HOW MANY LAWS IT PRETENDS TO PASS!
Deal with it, STFU AND JUST GO AWAY!!
Indeed, democracy is all about that.
Apparently, the moron does not realize that this country is NOT a democracy.
It’s true.
Many people actually think we live in a democracy.
It’s not satire any more.
AOC took care of that.
” ... the laws laid down by our President ...” Boy, did I get the Constitution wrong!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.