King Obama decrees: Free contraception, abortifacients and sterilizations for all.

February 11, 2012

All hail our glorious King

King Obama decrees: Free contraception, abortifacients and sterilizations for all.

And so it was, on the tenth day of the second month in the fourth year of our Dear Leader’s reign the decree went out across the land: birth control pills, “emergency” contraceptives and even some forms of sterilizations were no longer benefits to be chosen and costs shared between employers/employees and their insurance companies they were now government granted “rights” and by same government mandate they would now be made available on a “free and unfettered” basis.

In this new, enlightened, post-Constitutional era of Obama I, there is no longer a need for open and honest debate regarding actions and their consequences. The King has spoken and so it shall be.

Thursday’s column opened :

Supreme Court Unanimous:  Free contraception a fundamental Constitutional right Did you see that headline yesterday? Did you see it last week, last month, anytime in the past year, decade? Fear not your memory. You didn’t see it because it never was.

And although you won’t see today’s “King” headline either, you won’t not see it because it’s not true, you won’t see it because the minion media won’t dare call Dear Leader out for what he is: the man boy who thinks himself a King.

Papers will fill with thousands of column inches touting all the “free” healthcare for women now granted by our most benevolent leader. But there will be nary a word printed or said in the minion media discussing the consequences of such a decree.

The consequences of allowing one man or one woman the power to issue a blanket mandate to impose his/her will upon the rest of the populace.

The consequences of allowing a fundamental Constitutional issue to be framed as nothing more than a “women’s health” issue.

The consequences of a populace so entrenched in the “entitlement” mentality that so many of them would willfully and gladly ignore the dangers of the slipping away of their individual rights at the altar of government giving away more “free” stuff.

Yes, you dear little leftist lemmings, there ARE consequences to that which you now so joyfully celebrate. And those consequences go far, far beyond what should be a simple discussion of what insurance benefits are offered by employers and insurance companies to their employees and beneficiaries.

The Corner is not, repeat IS NOT against any of the now “free” mandated services being offered. The Corner IS however adamantly opposed to HOW they will now be offered and who will pay for them.

In one of the most hypocritical appearances of his Presidency Obama yesterday acted as if he put the entire issue to rest by decreeing that instead of a church or religious organization being forced to pay for services against their core beliefs, he will just force the insurance company to pick up the tab.

Never mind that somebody has to PAY for those FREE services Obama is now mandating and that in the Constitutional context it matters not whether the government forces the service by provided directly or a payment be made indirectly. The end result is government running roughshod over the first amendment’s freedom of religion clause.   (A clause by the way that just last month the Supreme Court unequivocally re-affirmed in the Hosanna-Tobar case with a 9 – 0 decision AGAINST the Obama administration’s latest attempt to subjugate the Constitution under the hand of the government.)

The benefits/rights of contraception/abortifacients/sterilization and their effects/consequences upon women’s health should be debated openly, honestly, forthrightly, and in that context. Only the farthest of the fringe would say such services should not be offered, but there are millions in the middle who wonder why they should pay for ALL of it without the patient being asked to contribute even a nominal co-pay.

What logic is the King using when he insists that while requiring a co-pay for cholesterol, heart, diabetes and other drugs is fine, asking a woman to pay a percentage of the cost for her contraception is not?

Hint: the logic of Chicago politics 101.

Follow along for a moment:

Obama’s wanted to implement this mandate from the beginning. But to start out with the “we’ll just make the insurance companies pick up the tab” would have created a fire-storm of criticism as well. (Obamacare is already seen by millions of Americans as just the first step to nationalized healthcare and the top down control that comes with it. Just announcing yet another “free” entitlement would only contribute to that negative narrative.)

So what to do? You set up a false scenario you have no intention of ever following through on.

You start with a mandate that infringes upon the freedom of religion clause knowing full well the uproar to come and the impossibility of it ever passing Supreme Court muster.

You then trickle out over days that you are “willing to compromise” on the issue and “respect the religious liberties” of all.

After a few days allowing the situation to fester, you pop up to the podium and announce: “problem solved, religious institutions no longer required to pay, as the insurance companies will now be required instead.”

Who would DARE defend those big, bad evil insurance companies right? AND you own the election year attack mantra that the Republicans will take away your “right” to have free healthcare.

To the left that has become accustomed to creating new entitlements problem solved.

To the masses that have become accustomed to demanding new entitlements, problem solved.

To the remaining few who see beyond the politics of the moment, and bemoan the chipping away at individual rights and Constitutional protections, problem no longer matters.

You label them as reactionary fringe, marginalize them as only a good Alinskyite can, and smile all the way back to the Oval Office.

See how easy that was?

You set up a false premise that you have power that the Constitution clearly states you DON’T have, then you orchestrate a false “compromise” that “balances” the power you never had in the first place with imaginary “rights” that never existed, and then you stand back as your media spreads the story of your wisdom and greatness across the land.

To those concerned with the Constitution and the erosion of our rights under this administration this is anything BUT a women’s health issue.

But to Obama and his minions it matters not. The newly found “right” to “free” contraception has nothing to do with women’s “health” and everything to do with November 6, 2012.

The only thing that matters now is how it is how the story will be reported, who will be listening and what they will hear. And the Obama machine knows that after fifty years of being told they are “entitled” to more and more, the masses will hear exactly what Obama wants them to hear: “Free, women’s health, compromise”.

Who needs a a piece of old parchment with so many of those evil “negative liberties” as the Constitution when you’ve got a King willing to “transform” you into something much more “fair” and “just”?

But hey, those are just the thoughts of a middle-aged consrvative reactionary don’t ya know.

Publisher’s Note:

While Thursday’s column did state that “next up” would be some fun at the expense of the EC and his dwainbwain’s by highlighting some of the best hypocrisy the left has to offer these days the King’s speech yesterday outdid them all and thus the “fun” shall have to wait a bit.

Tags: , , , , ,

8 Responses to King Obama decrees: Free contraception, abortifacients and sterilizations for all.

  1. anson burlingame on February 11, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Yet again we have government actting for SOME of the people, not ALL Americans.

    Free contraceptives my hind foot. NOTHING is free.


    • Geoff Caldwell on February 11, 2012 at 7:16 pm

      Oh but don’t expect the DwainBwain’s to buy into that “reactionary” argument. Those evil insurance companies have been stealing from the people for years, it’s only “fair” that Obama now force them to give some of it back.

  2. Herb Van Fleet on February 11, 2012 at 1:31 pm


    I guess what bothers me about all this stuff is carving out religion as a special exception for any governmental edict. In fact, I think ObamaCare and all this crap about contraception and who gets it free and who doesn’t has got to have our founding fathers crying in their graves.

    Over the years, the Supremes have gone back and forth on the first amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses, possibly because of the religious leanings of the Justices themselves at the time of the ruling. Currently, the Court has 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. (OK, boys and girls, can you say “Bye-Bye Obamacare?”) I can cite you some cases if you want, but for now I’d just say the Court has been and probably will continue to be inconsistent in the way religion should be treated under the 1st Amendment.

    As a non-believer, I am a little miffed at having to subsidize religion with my taxes. For example, church property is exempt from property taxes, yet receive all the same services from local government that I do. But a church is just a building. At some point that building may be sold and turned into a restaurant, at which time the new owner will have to pay property taxes. The same idea goes for sales tax as well. Well, I’ll never win that battle, but I can still bitch about it, like, right now for instance.

    Much has been written and debated and grossly misunderstood about whether we are a Christian nation and about the appropriate nexus of religion and government. In Congress, both the house and Senate open the day with a prayer from their respective chaplains, both of whom are paid with taxes. Every president, whoever it is, almost always ends a speech with “God Bless the United States.” We have “God” on our money and in our pledge of allegiance. Suffice to say, God is all over the place.

    But one place you won’t find God is in the Constitution. At the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin – a Johnny-come-lately to religion himself — made a motion to begin each session with a prayer. The motion died for lack of a second. In fact, a part of the Constitution itself, Article VI, paragraph 3, states that: “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    We are a secular nation and as such we should treat religious institutions just like all other institutions in our society. Of course we can’t “establish” a “Church of the United States,” and we can’t tell anybody what to believe, but beyond that, everybody is or should be equally subject to the laws of the United States – no exceptions.

    I always like to quote James Madison on this issue. Madison is my favorite founder because he spent his entire life questioning the various aspects of our government and came to different conclusions at different times. For example, Madison did not think it was necessary to have a “Bill of Rights” in the Constitution, thinking there would be too many rights to list. But George Washington convinced him otherwise. In any case, here is part of a speech Madison gave to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1785:

    “Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

    Our legislators, and administrators, and jurists need to check their bibles at the door.


  3. Geoff Caldwell on February 11, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    While I can partially understand some of your frustration the idea that God is nowhere in the Constitution and our Founding Documents is a nice little ruse propagated over the past few decades by the left to lull the masses into thinking it’s acceptable to remove God, religion and any reference to such in public life. While the “word” itself may not be printed, the essence of Christian values runs throughout our founding documents.
    While true there was much debate as to over how “much” God to include in our founding documents and framing it is cannot be denied that freedom of religion was THE primary reason the first pilgrims sailed into the unknown for the North American shores.
    As for “carving out a special exception” myself and even the Supreme Court does not see it so much as “carving” out anything rather it is respecting what is clearly already there.
    I noticed over on Dwain’s blog he spent line after line with irrelevant “justification” for his position and yet never addressed the most recent Hosanna-Tabor decision and how resoundingly SCOTUS came down on the side of religious freedom and the Constitutional requirement that the federal government stay the hell out of it.
    Just because freedom of religion drives the secular humanists crazy does not make it Constitutional to infringe upon it.
    Regarding your quote: “We are a secular nation and as such we should treat religious institutions just like all other institutions in our society” I say to you the same as to all other who wish to re-write history: The Supreme Court has been consistently disagreeing with that notion for over 200 years now and most recently disagreed very strongly with the federal government using it’s “secular” powers to meddle in the internal affairs of the Church. (A Lutheran church btw not one of those “evil” Catholics that Dwain likes to hate.)
    None of us can take a speech here and a quote there an lay the claim to know exactly how a Founder would feel today or what he even meant those many years ago. They must all be taken together with the context of the times. And when you do that you clearly see a nation founded upon individual and religious liberty with personal responsibility expected and the federal government restrained.
    It has only been in the last fifty years that the idea of we were never a Christian nation has begun to gain traction among the masses. Mainly due to the rise of liberalism and the mass media being a willing accomplice to the charade as it furthers the cause of larger and more powerful government.
    The less religion, the less personal responsibility and the greater the need for government to step in and take the place of both.
    Obama has been over-reaching since the day he took the oath and when it’s all said and done he’ll see almost everything he tried undone either by an angry public’s duly elected representatives or by a Supreme Court that still sees the Constitution, not the will of a wannabe King, as the law of the land.

  4. Herb Van Fleet on February 12, 2012 at 1:56 pm


    Yes, the Pilgrims did come here for religious freedom. But they did not come here to establish a theocracy. Clearly, if the Christians had wanted to impose their will on the Constitution, there would be evidence of it. The fact that there is not is because most of the intellectuals of the eighteenth century were not Christians; they were Deists, including the Enlightenment philosophers and the framers of out Constitution. You would have known that if you had studied your American history. It’s not “Christian Values” (whatever those are) that were imbued into the Constitution, it was the secular values of Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Rousseau and Blackstone, not to mention Thomas Paine, who was an atheist, and whose pamphlet “Common Sense,” was the catalyst for the Declaration of Independence.

    The Hosanna-Tabor case had to do with the legality of EEOC rules pertaining to the hiring of religious ministers. This was a very narrow decision that had to do specifically with appointing ministers (other clergy are not mentioned) by a church (other religious institutions are not mentioned). As Justice Roberts wrote, “the Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.” The decision explicitly left open the question whether religious organizations could be sued for other reasons and whether their employees who are not ministers would be protected by the Equal Opportunity laws. And that, my friend, is a hell of a long way from giving religious institutions free reign to do as they please. It would be dead wrong and a misrepresentation of fact to say that the Hosanna-Tabor decision shows that, “The Supreme Court . . . most recently disagreed very strongly with the federal government using it’s “secular” powers to meddle in the internal affairs of the Church.” I think Warren Jeffs hopes that statement is true, if his case goes through the appeals process.

    Yes, we are a secular nation. I know that fact drives the right wing nuts nuts, but there it is. And it didn’t just appear 50 years ago. I know you don’t like selected quotes, but you may have a hard time fighting this one. It’s from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams in 1797, after getting unanimous approval by the Senate: “Article 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. . . “ Take that to your tea party.

    Your statement that, “The less religion, the less personal responsibility and the greater the need for government to step in and take the place of both,” is absurd on its face. Religious doctrine, especially Christian doctrine, demands adherence to a strict authoritarianism in which personal responsibility is replaced by some kind of supernatural power, and demands a sacrifice of freedom, including free thought, and is opposed to any form of democracy or criticism.

    All that said, you and I are really on the same page here. I am a Jeffersonian in the idea that the best government is the government that governs least. There has been way too much interference in our lives by big government and now that they have the “terrorist” boogeyman to scare everybody with, they’re taking away some of our freedom as well. Sad to say, we are no longer a nation that follows the rule of law. We just make it up as we go along.


    • Geoff Caldwell on February 12, 2012 at 2:49 pm

      Man, Herb, you did to get a few facts on religion there and quit drinking the “secular” Kool-Aid.
      Ever here of “free will”? You know that “religious” thing we all have to “choose” whether to believe or follow or not?
      I never said the United States was founded upon the Christian religion. Religion as as diverse at our founding as it is today. Many sects, many denominations.
      BUT they all agreed upon one thing:
      Keep the government out of it.
      And as for my studying of American History I’ll put mine against your “intellectual” re-writing and selective quotes any day.
      To deny that Christian values and ideals were not on the minds of and protected by the Founders as they wrote and ultimately approved of the Constitution is as absurd as you saying that less religion and personal responsibility the more need government is absurd.
      To defend your total “secular” argument you must assume you know what was within the minds of men now long dead based upon a quote here a quote there without looking at the greater context of the entire first 100 years that lead them to the point of Independence in the first place.
      You also must suspend belief in reality of what has actually happened that is right in front of your eyes. Fifty years of one more government program after another, fifty years of one lawsuit against religion and its free practice thereof and what do we have? Trillions of dollars in debt, more poverty than ever, and the soul of a once great nation hollowed out by human secularism and the entitlement philosophy.
      As for Hosanna-Tabor I never said it gave religious institutions to just “do as they please” but it does strongly support the doctrine of the federal government staying out of the internal affairs of the church. All I’m pointing out is that when you have even the four liberals agreeing with the four conservatives you’ve got a part of the Constitution that seems pretty solid as far as the court is concerned. And since that comes under the “we are a nation of laws” and not a “theocracy” it makes it all the more irritating to me that Obama is actually arrogant enough to think his will should overrule the Court and the Constitution itself.
      Yes, we agree on limited government and using the “terrorist” boogeyman. But Obama creating a new “right” and now going to use it to say that Republicans are taking away that “right” is even scarier in my view. The whole beauty of the American system is that the Constitution did not “grant” rights it merely ensured that government could not trample upon those that God already granted.

  5. Herb Van Fleet on February 12, 2012 at 4:43 pm


    Well, we agree to disagree. No surprise there. But I do take offence at your statement, “as for my studying of American History I’ll put mine against your “intellectual” re-writing and selective quotes any day.” Here’s where I got my most recent intellectual re-writing tips:

    1. “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,” Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., PhD., Regency Publishing, 2007, 258 pages.

    2. “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers,” Brion McClanahan., PhD., Regency Publishing, 2009, 354 pages.

    3. “The Original Constitution – What it Actually Said and Meant,” Robert G Natelson, Tenth Amendment Center, 2010 and 2011, 281 pages

    4. “Constitution Café – Jefferson’s Brew for a True Revolution,” Christopher Phillips, W. W. Norton & Company, 2011, 321 pages.

    Then of course there are numerous opinions of the court, including dissenting opinions, that I’ve read along with a plethora of related articles and Op-Ed pieces. I’m not saying I’m an expert on the Construction, far from it. But I would bet 10,000 Rick Santorum dollars that I have a better working knowledge of it’s history and meaning than most of those on either the right of the left.

    By the way, in case you’re wondering, the first 3 books were written by right wingers like yourself. Wikipedia says Gutzman’s views have been characterized as libertarian, conservative, anti-Federalist, and states’ rights supporter. Likewise with McClanahan. Natelson is part of the Tenth Amendment Center and that organization has been assisting states with writing statues to nullify ObamaCare. Phillips I don’t know much about, but you only have to read the title of the book to see that he’s no Liberal Commie.

    Therefore, I would just ask that the next time we wander over into Constitution alley, you have a little respect for my “Intellectual re-writing.” Ironically, most of it is coming from your side of the political spectrum anyway.


    • Geoff Caldwell on February 12, 2012 at 5:46 pm

      I don’t doubt your sincerity in your “intellectual” beliefs. I don’t have the time to submit my own “counter” citations so yes I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
      As for you taking “offense”? Please, you’re a bigger boy than that. After all, I do believe my “absurd” reference was in reference to your first using it regarding one of mine? lol
      I’ve been at this thing so long my skin is thicker than an elephant’s I just don’t always realize that you newbies have a little thinner than I. Apologies for “offending” but none for using that little ol first amendment to disagree.
      Have a great evening.


October 2021
« Jul