Don’t tread on me: New directive is more offensive than progressive

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is an understood benefit of being an American citizen, something that our founding fathers looked upon with pride. It would allow future generations to enjoy freedoms that no other nation on Earth had ever experienced.

It’s not surprising, then, that the First Amendment was designed to be very straightforward. Specifically, the sacred division between church and state was highlighted in the freedom of religion.

But, sadly, the amendment wasn’t clear enough.

Earlier this month, President Obama showed a complete misunderstanding of this freedom when he announced that all places of employment will now be required to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.

In his announcement, Obama described religious liberty as “an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution.” The irony, of course, is that he completely overlooked the fact that it is … well, inalienable. When he decided to ignore numerous petitions from churches to make this directive, he took the first step in forcing Americans to forsake their Constitutional religious freedoms.

To be fair, Obama isn’t the only guilty party. There is also the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to thank for this violation of our Constitutional rights. And in response to the abovementioned outcry from religious organizations, two changes were made to the updated ObamaCare.

First, the DHHS made a half-hearted attempt to placate the upset religious community. So rather than force the change immediately, the department elected to grant a one year grace period. After that year, however, the religious employment organizations will be required to follow to the new ObamaCare mandate.

And last week, the second alteration came when Obama returned to the podium to clarify his new directive:

“If a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company, not the hospital, not the charity, will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

“The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly,” Obama said in this second announcement.

The key word, of course, is “directly.”

As a college student, I admit that I don’t have a complete understanding of insurance policies and medical plans. However, I’m aware enough to know that the employer ultimately pays — however indirectly — for any medical service that is covered by provided insurance plans. So while claiming that the employer does not pay certainly sounds like a fix-all, it is only a sneaky way of saying that the money will come out of the employer’s pocket — it will just funnel through the insurance company first.

Mathew Staver, Dean and Professor of Law at Liberty University, as well as Founder and Chairman of the Liberty Counsel, immediately rose to take a stand for American religious liberties.

“Laundering a Catholic or Christian organization’s money through the insurance company to pay for abortifacients does not suddenly correct the moral sin inflicted by Obama. ObamaCare is a direct attack on the moral and religious beliefs of our nation … ObamaCare is an assault on our freedom,” Staver said in a Liberty Counsel announcement.

“ObamaCare is a direct attack on the moral and religious beliefs of our nation. One year will not change religious tenets that have been in place for thousands of years,” Staver said.

While Staver is more than correct in this view, it does not provide an alternative. Fortunately, Staver isn’t the only person to rise to the challenge presented by Obama’s directive.

Currently, a bill by Sen. Marco Rubio has been introduced to Congress. According to his article in the New York Post, Rubio “introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012…to establish a firm religious exemption to this insurance requirement under ObamaCare. [This bill] is a narrowly focused, common-sense measure that simply says the government can’t force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith.”

Americans are fortunate that politicians like Rubio are in office. Without men like Rubio, or Dean Staver — who will participate in the Liberty Counsel’s argument against ObamaCare in the Supreme Court next month — the battle for our continuing religious freedom might already have been lost.

The only task left to us, it seems, is to rally behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and see that it passes through Congress. It is obvious that we need to make sure that the bill reigns in a presidential administration that is seeking to undermine the very infrastructure of American freedom.