Obamacare limits freedom on abortion, contraception

On Oct. 5, President Obama came to George Mason University in Virginia, where I teach law, to generate support for the health care mandate requiring employers to buy health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause early abortions.

"Let me tell you something, Virginia," he said. "I don't think your boss should control the care you get. I don't think insurance companies should ... I definitely don't think politicians on Capitol Hill should ... I think there's one person who gets to make decisions about your health care -- that's you."

The president can obviously say what he wants, but I wish he wouldn't say that a law means its opposite. When it comes to women's reproductive health, the new health law shows no regard for women's ability to make their own decisions.

Polls show that most women don't want abortion in their health coverage (68 percent, according to a poll taken in fall 2009, as the health care debate began). Most insurance companies still include it, but enrollees can always ask that it be taken out, and may get their way if they band together. The new health care law changes this balance of power by giving insurance companies more power to make such unilateral decisions.

In the new health care exchanges, the new national health care law states that insurance companies "shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage" of elective abortions. There is no role for the women being covered. Once an insurer decides to cover abortions, it is required to "collect from each enrollee in the plan ... a separate payment" for abortion, beyond the regular premium. ¤1303 (b)(2)(B)(i). In short, the federal government now forbids an opt-out from abortion coverage.

There is a proviso that, out of the dozens of health plans on each state exchange, at least one must exclude elective abortion coverage. So if I'm among the majority of women who don't want to buy abortion coverage, I have the freedom to choose between that plan and ... none. Hope it's a good plan.

Things don't get better when we turn to the new "preventive services" mandate for contraceptives. Currently, most insurance companies cover it; most employers go along; female employees can ask for a different decision, especially if they band together. The new law sets up a different regime: Everyone must offer, sponsor or purchase exactly the same coverage. The federal government is the only decider. Even in most religious institutions, female employees cannot choose differently. The federal government has floated the idea that it will assign a "separate entity" to "provide this coverage automatically and directly to participants and beneficiaries" at religious institutions. In other words, coverage will be imposed on women whether they want it or not, "automatically," including drugs, devices and surgeries, and accompanying "education and counseling" for any daughters I have -- with guarantees of "privacy" so I will never know what's happening.

Women who want contraceptives at a lower cost may think that their freedom is growing. What they may not realize is that supporters of the mandate are avowedly trying to change their behavior -- to move women from their current methods of contraception to more expensive "long-acting reversible contraceptives" like the IUD and implant, which work for years and can only be removed by a doctor. About 5 percent of women use them today, but in a recent study, researchers offered all methods for "free" but persuaded about 75 percent of a cohort of women to get LARCs inserted. This study, which proves that medical professionals can badger women into long-term sterility, is being hailed as a paradigm for the contraceptive mandate.

Want to give women control over their own health care, Mr. President? Let's start by ending the abortion and contraception mandates and giving people freedom to choose their own coverage.

I saved a page from the Reno Gazette Journal dated Nov 5, 2008. It is a column on page 4B that gives snippets on 10 items Obama ran on in 2008.

I quote: HEALTHCARE:

“Mandatory coverage for children, NO MANDATE FOR ADULTS— (CAPS mine). Aim for universal coverage by requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering coverage similar to the plan for Federal employees. Proposes spending $50 BILLION in information technology over five years to reduce health costs over time. Tax Policy Center estimates overall plan’s cost at $1.6 TRILLION over 10 years.” End quote.

GAY MARRIAGE: Quote:

“Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Supports civil unions, says states should decide about marriage.”
End Quote.

I'm afraid we'll be allowed the natural and logical evere --- sufficiently severe ---

Hosea 9:11-14
But when [the people of Ephraim] came to Baal Peor,
they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol
and became as vile as the thing they loved.
Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird —
no birth, no pregnancy, no conception...
Ephraim will bring out their children
to the slayer.
Give them, Lord—
what will you give them?
Give them wombs that miscarry
and breasts that are dry.

Our chosen sterility will become irreversible; sport-sex will double the cephalospirin-resistant gonorrhea, and double it again, and double it again (we saw how this works with AIDS) --- it will bloom across this continent, and voila: we become as vile as the thing we loved. Probably before extinction comes by natural demographic attrition, the Muslims will come and finish the job. The few surviving children we do bring forth, we bring forth to the slayer.

It's what we're so relentlessly persuing.

They say the sign over the gate of hell says, "I did it my way."

It’s very interesting that people are willing to do anything - including kill - to avoid having a baby ... right up to the point that they’re willing to do anything ... even kill - to have a baby.

“You will be as God ...”

I don't know how I managed to erase part of my post above. It was supposed to say, "We'll get our own natural and logical consequences, and that will be divine punishment sufficiently severe." Here's Ronald Knox's translation of that Hosea 9. It has a Victorian literary feel ("caught foul contagion from the things they loved" is just the right note, though); overall I prefer the NAB actually, more stark. But here it is again:

And all at once to Beelphegor they betook themselves, sold honour for shame, caught foul contagion from the things they loved!
Light as bird on bough, Ephraim's glory has come and gone; womb is none that breeds, or, breeding, bears;
ay, though they should bring sons to manhood, childless their race shall be, nameless among men. Woe betide them indeed, when I withdraw my presence from them!
Ephraim's land, so fair a garden, as I look out over it towards Tyre! And must Ephraim rear her sons for the slaughter-house?
Your gift to them, Lord, what is the best gift they can have of you? A womb, assuredly, that miscarries, and dried-up breasts!
On Ephraim blight has fallen; withered the root now, wizened the fruit; beget they, doom of death is on their offspring, so dearly loved.

Withered the root now, wizened the fruit.

I admire Ronald Knox, but I’m glad his translation never caught on in the English-speaking world. He has flashes of memorable, Tolkienesque imagery, amid a haystack of “Say, what?”

Scott Hahn often mentions that God “punishes” us by giving us what we want! “You want to be in charge? Okay, knock yourselves out ....”.

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.