- I am truly grateful to live in a country where the first freedom guaranteed in our Constitution is thefreedom of religion. I am also grateful that our Declaration of Independence explicitly states in writing that our inalienable rights come from God (our Creator) and the first and foremost is theright to life. The democratic-republic we live in is supposed to govern with truth and justice via the rule of law. Law is an ordinance of reason promulgated by legitimate authority, i.e., one who has care of the community, and which promotes and serves the common good. (Lex est rationis romulgate ad bonum commune ab eo qui curam communitatis habet romulgate)
Unfortunately, I do not have full confidence in our current system of jurisprudence. Yes, we have many fine judges and attorneys who are committed to truth and justice. But the system is being abused by those who have another agenda. My younger brother was killed by an underage drunk driver on July 5, 1997. The medical blood test which unequivocally established that the accused was very much over the legal limit even if he had been of drinking age (which he was not), was suppressed by a judge on a minuscule legal technicality. My brother was killed just three blocks from home and the person who ran into him served no time in jail and paid no fine whatsoever. Even his driving license was not suspended or revoked. Ironically, if you drive away from a gas station without paying for the fuel, the law will suspend your license. Get too many parking tickets, and you can have your license revoked. Kill a human being with your automobile while under the influence or driving while intoxicated, however, and nothing happens. I find that obscene.
Likewise, I find the recent SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling on Affordable Care Act equally obscene. A legal technicality has once again spit in the eye of justice. Semantics have replaced duty. Every judge is supposed to seek truth and justice in every trial. On the one hand, we are told that the act is not constitutional under the commerce clause, but it is a lawful levying of a tax and thus is constitutional. The mandate of Health and Human Services implements this law and violates our first constitutional freedom, the freedom of religion. It does this by obligating Catholic schools and hospitals and businesses to provide or subsidize medical procedures that are intrinsically opposed to the natural moral law andde facto violate the religious conscience of the believers of that creed. Dioceses and parishes are 'exempt' by legal fiat, not because it is wrong to impose such measures. Catholic hospitals, nursing homes, colleges and universities and businesses (like Eternal Word Television Network) will be compelled to provide or subsidize abortions, sterilizations, euthanasia and contraception to anyone who works for them.
Imagine if the government told a hospital it had to provide cigarettes to any employee who smoked, or pay fines and taxes that allow the smoker to get free cigarettes. Yet that is what will happen when Catholic hospitals are told they must provide 'reproductive health care' to any and all employees.
Contraceptives often work as abortifacients, which do not prevent conception, but rather prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg. Once fertilization of the egg occurs, however, there is conception and there is a new and distinct human being in the womb, whether it is attached to the uterine wall or in the fallopian tube. Human DNA is present and once conception takes place, that DNA is distinct and separate from all the rest of the mother's body, which has her unique DNA. The unborn baby has similar DNA, but it is not identical, for he or she is a new human being at this moment.
What bothers me most is that important issues like religious freedom and health care are erroneously portrayed as in opposition to one another. Caring for the sick is corporal work of mercy. Respecting the conscience and the religious beliefs of others is equally sacred. Since abortion and contraception are currently legal in our country, those who have no qualm of conscience can obtain these without fear of being arrested. At the same time, however, they are not inalienable rights. No one can demand them. They can obtain them but no one is obligated to provide them if either violates their conscience. If as a restaurant owner I freely choose not to serve alcohol, I am under no moral or legal obligation to secure a liquor license, nor am I obliged to serve alcohol. If someone wants it, they can get it themselves at the local liquor store or go to a different restaurant that serves booze.
Under ACA, HHS will force hospitals, schools, insurance companies, and other businesses to provide or subsidize contraceptives, abortion and euthanasia to anyone they employ. Why not force these institutions to provide or subsidize cigarettes free of charge to their workers? Yet, what do we see? Hospitals and other public places forbidding smoking not only inside but even outside the building because cigarette smoking causes cancer. Abortion and abortifacient contraceptives and euthanasia are also lethal and deadly to innocent human beings. How can the government force anyone to provide something dangerous if they choose not to do so?
Whether President Obama reforms his current law or Governor Romney repeals it and replaces it with a different piece of legislation, all citizens must be concerned and get involved. Socialized medicine is not an inalienable right, but the right to life is, and so is religious freedom. One danger in placing too much confidence in the court system is that individual judges can let you down. Having a pro-life president and Congress can ensure the possibility of a pro-life judge getting on the Supreme Court, but there is no guarantee. Today, to appease the judicial committee, presidents often nominate safe judges who have little or no paper trail. Their previous decisions are vague or non-existent on the issue of the right to life of the unborn. Hence, to pass the Senate, we get people who have not expressed much, if anything, on this important matter.
A hundred and fifty years ago, the pertinent question was: What is your position on slavery? Fifty years ago it was racial segregation. People had a right to know if judges believed in civil rights. Being vague is not good enough. Today, the crucial question is about the inalienable right to life. Does it exist? When?
We must elect pro-life politicians to the House, Senate and presidency, but also we need to demand from those nominated to the Supreme Court that they will defend and promote justice for all citizens, those inside and outside the womb. Human beings have rights from their Creator. The executive, legislative and judicial branches have no authority to grant, rescind, deny or create any human rights whatsoever. Their job is to defend and protect the rights all human beings have from their human nature.
Justice was not served, nor was truth upheld. Legal technicality is a stratagem used to obfuscate justice, not pursue it. What makes the recent Supreme Court decision even more enigmatic is what Kim Daniels of Catholic Voices USA writes:
- Championed by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that mandate requires most employers to provide free coverage for contraceptives, abortion-causing drugs, and sterilizations even when doing so violates their deeply-held religious beliefs. Often called the 'HHS mandate,' this regulation was not before the court this time around, and the court's ruling did not affect it at all. It remains in force and under challenge; some 56 plaintiffs have filed suit against it in 23 separate cases across the country.
In her separate opinion — joined by Justice Sotomayor, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan — Justice Ginsburg notes that beyond the provisions directly at issue in the healthcare case, other constitutional provisions limit the power of the federal government: 'A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.'
The right to life and religious freedom are not in any way, shape or form equal or subservient to people's access to elective treatment and procedures. Persons have access to contraceptives at any pharmacy, and, sadly, even to abortion procedures at Planned Parenthood facilities. But under no circumstances should taxpayers, schools, hospitals, insurance companies and businesses be coerced or compelled to provide or subsidize them. Fining or taxing those who fail to provide these non-essential and controversial measures is repugnant to reason and justice.
This law must be repealed and redone from scratch. We need to overhaul the medical care system as a matter of social justice, but national health care is not the panacea. Justice demands we respect religious freedom and individual conscience while first and foremost respecting and defending the right to life of all human beings. Creating unreasonable debt for the nation, families and individuals, whether this generation or those to follow, is no solution, either. Weakening national defense or violating human rights is just as insane and unjust. Neglecting the sick and dying is no option, but remember: The ends never justifies the means.
Let's elect politicians and install judges who truly seek truth and justice for all men and women, born and unborn. All three branches of government need to put the common good first and politics last. Law is to be a tool for man to use to protect him, not enslave or endanger him. Laws that deny human rights, like the right to life and religious freedom, are not valid laws and should be replaced by ones that are.
- Father John Trigilio, Jr.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/120705
1 comment:
I have faulted the bishops for their ongoing support of greater government intervention in healthcare because it seems obvious to me that the DHHS mandate is a natural and predictable result of a Democrat-controlled DHHS gaining the power to issue such regulations. Nevertheless, I am left scratching my head as to Fr. Trigilio's point. Is he really suggesting, as he appears to be, that the court's decision upholding the ACA is obscene because one regulation issued pursuant to it is obscene? As Daniels notes, in the passage Trigilio quotes, the DHHS mandate on which the latter focusses "was not before the court …, and the court's ruling did not affect it at all."
It by no means follows from the statute that DHHS must mandate contraceptive coverage—when I say that the latter is a natural and predictable result of the former, what I mean is that it is a possible result and one that can be predicted given the attitude of the left to contraceptives and the Catholic Church—and even if it did, I have never heard of a case in which the alleged unconstitutionality of an agency regulation was used to ask for the enabling statute to be struck down, and I cannot imagine such a case succeeding. The remedy would be to strike down the regulation. I find it mindboggling that Trigilio would fault the court in such strong language for failing to strike down the act on the basis of an entirely novel argument that was not pressed in this case nor, so far as I know, in any other case. Yet that is what he appears to be saying.
Of course it is true that if the court had struck down Obamacare, the DHHS mandate would have fallen, but it does not follow that because one wants the DHHS mandate gone, the court therefore has a moral imperative to strike down Obamacare.
Post a Comment