Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’

The Obama Administration grossly miscalculated the reaction that American Catholics would have to the new Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring Catholic institutions such as schools, hospitals, and charities, to purchase health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs–all of which are immoral according to Catholic teaching.

Stories in the Huffington Post and others covering the controversy are quick to point out that 98% percent of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control; whether these women are all actively practicing Catholics is not discussed.  Regardless, the point is moot.  The Catholic Church is a 2,000 year-old global institution; its orthodoxy is not governed by polling in the United States.  Further, the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  There is no stipulation saying, “unless Congress determines that some followers of that religion do not strictly adhere to all of that religion’s tenets.”  Many Jews do not keep kosher, so can Congress pass a law prohibiting those who do from continuing?

Catholics may disagree with the rules of the Church, as children at times disagree with the rules of their parents, but it does not mean that Catholics do not respect or love the Church just as a rebellious child still respects and loves his parents.  The Obama Administration gambled that Catholics would choose Obama over the Church.  The sheer arrogance is mind-blowing. As Peggy Noonan wrote in her WSJ column, “there was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.”

Even some Catholic liberals like the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne have spoken out against the mandate.  When E.J. Dionne and I are in agreement, there is something incredibly wrong in the world.  The pressure on the Administration is growing and will be unrelenting.  The Catholic vote matters to Obama and eventually, I believe, the Administration will capitulate.  If it isn’t soon, the damage to his image with Catholics could be irreparable.

This past weekend, Catholic bishops around the country wrote letters, to be read at Sunday Masses, condemning the attack on religious freedom.  Among these bishops was Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix and Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the Archbishop of Military Services who wrote that the HHS rule was, “a blow to the freedom that you have fought to defend and for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.”

As National Review reports, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains actually tried to prevent Catholic chaplains from reading Archbishop Broglio’s letter from the pulpit.  The Executive Branch tramples on freedom of religion and then tries to silence those who object–these are not the actions of a man who respects our free society.  Obama views the First Amendment, heck the entire Constitution, as optional.

He must be stopped.

This has been a big week for the First Amendment.

In Arizona on Wednesday, Judge Roselyn Silver ruled that candidates who raise or use their own money in state elections will not be “gifting” taxpayer money to “clean election” candidates beyond the initial allotment given. In Arizona election parlance, it means no more matching funds. If you are a clean elections candidate, you may hope someone decides to run traditional and raise and spend a lot of money, because under the original law, any money raised by a traditional candidate beyond the threshold amount is matched with taxpayer money.

If the 9^th Circuit decides not to take up the appeal from the Clean Elections Commission, it will be bad news for the likes of Governor Brewer, Dean Martin and Terry Goddard because Buzz Mills is poised to spend millions of dollars that would not be matched. The Governor’s race just got a lot more interesting.

In a huge decision on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the prohibition of unions and corporations from using money to directly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. This is a total game-changer for federal politics. Because candidates and parties will still have the same restrictions on the type of money and the amount they can take, there will likely be some U.S. Senate races and U.S. House races in 2010 that are decided by outside interests.

Think of it this way. A union decides they want to target a Republican who voted against card check. That union could literally spend millions of dollars communicating directly to voters to throw the incumbent out.

Some will claim that this makes politics more dirty. I don’t. Politics has always been pretty messy. It’s the way human nature works. If a corporation decides that a particular candidate is dangerous to their industry, they can now campaign directly against them.

Seriously, this will change campaigns in a big, big way.

Let me give you an example. Remember when State Senator Jim Waring tried to pass a bill to do away with fees for breaking contracts with cell phone carriers? Ostensibly, if the likes of Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile thought he might pose a threat to them if he were elected to Congress, they could literally spend millions of dollars running ads and sending mail advocating his defeat.

Huh. Wonder if that will happen…

UPDATE: Lest someone think that I am singling out Waring, another example would be if the health insurance industry decided to run ads against Congressman Shadegg (if he were running again) because he exposed their continued immunity from lawsuits under ERISA in the Democrat House health care bill.  It could also be that a consumer group, thankful to Waring for taking on cell companies, could run ads lauding his courage.  The point is that the Supreme Court decision will likely fundamentally change the game of federal elections for the near future.