Post by ShivaTD on Nov 28, 2013 13:21:35 GMT
It is sometimes hard for me to understand the stupidity of some Republicans and their complete lack of understanding of the ideals upon which America was founded and the US Constitution. Nothing exemplifies this more than the following statements from Mary Matalin.
"It assaulted our very first freedom, religious freedom, and the Supremes are now going to take up that aspect of it and it's an opportunity for us to take a stand for freedom of speech, freedom of religion. You don't have to be a person of faith to take up for the First Amendment."
She does not buy the argument of Democrats that Republicans are anti-women on abortion and contraceptives issues.
"What [women] really do care about, even if they’re pro-choice, is the government forcing employers or their businesses or faith groups to provide funding for abortions and contraception when it defies their rights. They're bound to the Constitution," Matalin said.
www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/matalin-obamacare-religious-freedom/2013/11/26/id/538845?ns_mail_uid=64820911&ns_mail_job=1547884_11272013&promo_code=15C10-1
She does not buy the argument of Democrats that Republicans are anti-women on abortion and contraceptives issues.
"What [women] really do care about, even if they’re pro-choice, is the government forcing employers or their businesses or faith groups to provide funding for abortions and contraception when it defies their rights. They're bound to the Constitution," Matalin said.
www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/matalin-obamacare-religious-freedom/2013/11/26/id/538845?ns_mail_uid=64820911&ns_mail_job=1547884_11272013&promo_code=15C10-1
I've seen interviews with Mary Matalin and always considered her to be an intelligent person but apparently she hasn't reviewed Constitutional precedent established by the Supreme Court where it addresses Freedom of Religion as protected by the First Amendment and has absolutely no understanding of "private insurance" under the laws of the United States.
Let's start with "insurance" because an employer, unless self-insured, don't make any payments to any medical service provider for anything. The employer pays an insurance premium and the insurance company pays the medical service providers based upon the conditions of the insurance policy. The "employer" has no authority whatsoever to dictate what is or what is not included in the "group" insurance policy that covers numerous individuals and where the individual receives the benefits and not the employer. A person, based upon their own "religious" convictions, can choose to use all or part of the benefits covered by the insurance policy.
If "insurance companies" include birth control and abortion funding in the "group" that are insured then that has no bearing upon the individual religious beliefs of anyone. A person in the "group" can choose to use or not use those benefits as they see fit based upon their own individual religions beliefs. The "employer" has no right or authority to impose their religious beliefs upon another person.
It can also be noted that "contraception and abortion" benefits actually reduce and don't increase the cost of private insurance. The "employer" isn't "paying for these services" but instead is actually paying less for the insurance if these benefits were not included. Medical services for pregnancy are far more expensive than the costs of birth control and abortion.
Religious freedom was addressed in the landmark Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v United States in 1879 and in it we find the following statements by the US Supreme Court that cites Thomas Jefferson (a deist) that was one of the foremost advocates for protections of Freedom of Religion" as expressed in the First Amendment:
Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." <edit>
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." <edit>
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
Religion is a matter that is solely between a man and his God and that is as it should be. The employer, be it a commercial enterprise or a church, has no authority to dictate the religious beliefs of the individual. An "employee" has their Right of Freedom of Religion that the employer has no authority to violate that Freedom of the Person to exercise their religious beliefs in a manner they choose.
It is solely up to the individual if they want to use insurance benefits related to contraception or abortion and the "employer" should not be allowed to make this decision for them by denying them insurance benefits that are offered to all other Americans.
Mary Matalin is arguing that the "individual" does not have a Right to equal protection under the law to exercise their Right of Freedom of Religion if their beliefs contradicts the religious beliefs of the employer. The employer is NOT paying for contraception or abortion as the employer only pays an insurance premium that covers thousands or millions of people that are entitled to benefits of the insurance policy. It is the insurance company that determines what benefits the insurance company will pay for, not the employer, and all people in the insurance group are entitle to the identical benefits under the insurance policies.
If we wanted to address this by analogy if Mary Matalin opposes adultery based upon her religious beliefs then she opposes the US Constitution that allows adultery. Of course it's not surprising to me that a Republican would cite the US Constitution while opposing it at the same time. If Mary Matalin actually endorsed Freedom of Religion for the Person she would oppose any exemptions of benefits under the PPACA based upon someone else's religious beliefs.
