Skip to comments.Boxer: Insurance rights trumps religious rights
Posted on 02/15/2012 7:58:13 AM PST by Nachum
Senator Boxer warned yesterday that if the HHS contraception mandate was repealed it would set a dangerous precedence of religious rights trumping the right to be insured. On MSNBC's Politics Nation with Al Sharpton last night, Boxer affirmed that under the proposed amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, an employer would not be forced by the government to pay for medical practices against his religion. "I mean, are they serious? Sharpton exclaimed, "How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?" "Oh Absolutely," Boxer said,
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Our education system stinks. Sure I learned about the 1st amendment. But they completely skipped the one providing “the right to be insured”. I had civics classes pretty frequently from elementary school through college and not a single one covered that part of the Constitution.
Is that what she’s telling the muzzies too?
Oh, wait, they’re friends of BO - pun intended.
“No Medicine!” Only the government can say that.
A very dangerous idiot...they are poking the American People with a stick..trying to assess the potential and threshold of violent push-back....just collecting “data” they “need” to know as they continue to assemble their virtual “Berlin Wall”....
Ummm...when ObamaCare kicks in and the Muslims start screaming because they don't "believe" in insurance...will this lying sack of poo come down on the same side of the argument and still maintain that insurance 'rights' trumps religious rights?
She'll flip-flop like a dying mackerel on the deck of a fishing boat.
She's no idiot!
She knows in the small minds of many people the ability to discriminate between requiring employers to pay for birth control (and soon abortions) is indistinguishable from the right to birth control.
This is a calculated attempt by the administration to focus this years debate away from the economy and on Republicans wanting to take away your rights.
If Obama were to order insurance companies to include coverage for oil changes as a basic part of every car insurance policy, and the insurance companies were to object, Barbara Boxer would say that the insurance companies are preventing people from getting oil changes.
“How do you make a law where an employer can decide his own religious beliefs violate your right to be insured?”
How do you make a law where you can decide your own desire to be insured violates an employer’s religious beliefs?
More to the point:
How do you make a law where you can decide your own religious beliefs regarding insurance take precedence over an employer’s religious beliefs regarding insurance?
Because that’s what it is, religious belief against religious belief.
Where is that "right" located in the U.S. Constitution????? I get I have a "right" to an abortion, a "right" for chicken nuggets but you've got me on this one, please help.
From Henry VIII to Elizabeth I to the Nazi German Christian Movement to the Patriotic Church in China, the strategy of tyrants at war with the Catholic Church is to create a fake nationalized church docile to the will of the tyrant and to use it as a weapon against the real Church.
Obama is now attempting precisely that.
In partibus infidelium.
Damned straight he was right!
Scary but true. That is exactly what they are doing over and over again.
Start with something obscure like making recess appointments while Congress is in pro forma session. A little bluster... no real objections. Good.
Move on to something a little bigger like that pesky free excercise of religion thing. Oooooh, they are stamping their feet now. No pitchforks yet though. Good.
Next, we will....???????
The First Amendment's protections trump and make invalid any efforts by this so-called "progressive" Administration and its allies like Boxer to superimpose their own man-made coercively-imposed laws over "the People's" "Creator-endowed" (therefore, unalienable) rights.
Boxer is either ignorant of the majesty and supremacy of the Constitution's protections against persons like her who achieve positions of power in government, or she relies on what she believes to be the ignorance of the electorate.
Boxer doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. To her, like Obama, it is nothing more than a hurdle to be overcome.
As for the ignorance of the electorate - her belief is well founded. After all, the electorate has been putting these shysters in office on a regular basis for the past 80 years.
The Democrats long ago came to understand something conservatives never seem to get: One half the population have lower than average IQ's.
No confusion at all. The left knows their voting block has no clue what is in the constitution. So when they spout this idiocy they fully expect the idiots to believe the constitution contains a right to be insured. Its by design. Or they could just be idiots themselves.
I’m kind of proud of Boxer...2nd place in the working group at Westminster this year!
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.