In the Akron Beacon Journal on Monday, July 7th, an article by Mark Sherman and Rachel Zoll on the front page about the court cases regarding contraception and nonprofits caught my eye.
The third paragraph states, "The issue in more than four dozen lawsuits from faith-affiliated charities, colleges and hospitals that oppose some or all contraception as immoral is how far the Obama administration must go to accommodate them."
Does anything about that sentence kind of jump out at you? It did me -- and especially the use of the word 'accommodate.'
What all of these lawsuits have in common is that they call into question the Affordable Health Care Act (or Obamacare) as far as how it oversteps the constitution in the case of faith-affiliated institutions. For me, equating the overstepping of the constitution to the remedy that the Obama administration must come up with is not accommodation -- it is a case of law.
The online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "accommodating" as "willing to please", and mentions as a synonym, "obliging." Obamacare is either in compliance with the Constitution or it is not. Period. Of course, it would seem that the administration did overstep its bounds and I have a hard time believing any of their rhetoric now anyways. Like when the president said, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," and he followed it up with. "Period." And we know how that turned out.
As the provisions of the healthcare law became understood, the president was warned that there would be trouble from faith-affiliated groups and he did nothing to work with the dissenters. The suits were brought about because no one would talk or listen to the faith-based institutions.
The recent Hobby Lobby case which was ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby by the U.S. Supreme Court would have forced this Christian-owned company to offer all 20 of the drugs on the Obamacare list dealing with preventing pregnancy or in stopping a pregnancy that just got started. Hobby Lobby was more than willing to provide its employees with 16 of the 20, but were unwilling to provide four drugs -- the ones that essentially force a spontaneous abortion of a fertilized embryo. Many hail this ruling as a sign that the court is trying to curtail this president's power grab. (As of this morning, Harry Reid has vowed that they will be doing something about this. Such arrogance!!)
The court's prior ruling, the one that found that all of his Labor Relations Board appointments were illegal, since they were made while the Senate was in session, was ruled on by a 9-0 vote, meaning that even the president's own appointees to the court ruled against his actions.
All of this should signal that we have a problem here, and there are indications that it may be growing. There are indications that in some instances states are going to take over for where the federal officials are not acting, such as in the case of illegal aliens being bused into the United States and dropped off somewhere with no food, money or a place to stay. With a paper in hand that tells them to report to an immigration official within 15 days. Guess how many don't? One place where three buses arrived a population of 5,000 people. Really? Why can't this president act to make it legal to turn the buses around and send them back?
The drug cartels are taking money from the people to come to the United States. Newspapers in various Central American countries told citizens that this is the time to go -- that no one would stop them and they could get into the country. The newspapers promised an education and opportunities in America at a time when we as a country are struggling to provide for ourselves.
One man who was interviewed was asked about compassion. He said that he is a compassionate person but that his town has absolutely nowhere to put the people on the buses, and that to allow them entry would be completely without compassion.
Here's something that really got to me -- the drug cartels coach the children to say that they were abused or that they were fleeing gangs because they know that America is a caring place and that we protect our children. In truth, the children on the buses are coming because someone saw an open door.
How many years have citizens been saying that they want the border secured? Why is it six or eight years later and the border is still not secure? How many years have citizens been telling their elected officials that they want American energy independent? If we would have started along that road back in the 1970s, where would we be now?
Yes, I wrote a column about my love for America, and I do love my country. But I don't like what is going on right now and I'm concerned about the direction this president is taking us in. That's plain and simple.
If you get a chance and want to understand a little better the differences between liberal and conservative and messages and miscommunication, go see "America," now playing in theaters in this area. It will help you understand so much better than I could ever explain in this posting.
God bless you, God bless America, God guide America.
No comments:
Post a Comment