God Bless North Dakota

A bill is on its way to North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple’s desk that would ban abortions based on genetic abnormalities like Down Syndrome. This is the first legislation of its kind in America. HB 1305 would also ban sex-selective abortions, making North Dakota the fifth state to put such a ban in place.

As we discussed at the last Pro-Life meeting at Lindenwood, sex-selective abortion has become a startlingly common practice across America, a deplorable practice proven by Live Action to be condoned by the likes of Planned Parenthood. From ProtectOurGirls.com, a project of Live Action:

“Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen estimated that as early as 1990, approximately 100 million women were demographically missing worldwide due to sex-selection abortion, female infanticide, and other such practices. Current estimates now put that number at 200 million missing women and girls globally.”

Even more shocking is the statistic that 92% of babies who are found to have Downs Syndrome are aborted. That means only 8% of these precious babies have a chance at life. This bill banning abortions based on genetic imperfections will undoubtedly save lives. (Click here to read a beautiful blog post by Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, about her little brother, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.)

God bless North Dakota, Governor Dalrymple, bill sponsor Rep. Bette Grande and the entire North Dakota legislature for moving forward with this legislation!

Letter to Congress Part II: Right of Conscience

(Part II of a letter to Congress I was assigned to write for a government class. See Part I: Free Exercise of Religion that I posted yesterday for the first half of the letter to Congresswoman Ann Wagner (MO-2)!) 

“The Federal Health Care Provider Conscience Laws protect healthcare providers (doctors and nurses) from participating in practices against their religious beliefs such as abortions and sterilizations. Similarly, American employers, religious schools and organizations should be guaranteed that same protection of right of conscience. The Court opinion in the landmark Roe v. Wade acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue and the existence of differing views on the issue of abortion. The court acknowledged their “awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views” and that “one’s religious training, one’s attitude toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe” all impact how one perceives the practice of abortion.

Why, then, should those who perceive abortion and similar practices to be morally bereft be forced to condone and support the practice with funds through employee insurance or else face extravagant fines? They shouldn’t. That’s why the HCCRA is a step towards protecting the right of conscience and preserving the integrity of the free exercise clause. (And it’s important to note that this amendment would not prevent or impede upon one’s ability to seek abortion, contraceptive, and sterilization services elsewhere other than their insurance plan.)

Not only does the mandate have constitutional implications on the rights of Americans, but also the HHS mandate poses the potential for economic detriment. Religiously affiliated schools, charities, organizations, and hospitals that provide necessary and much needed services to many Americans will not choose compliance over their convictions—nor should they be expected to. These businesses and charities will close rather than fund practices they believe to be morally wrong, and the country will feel the effects. Further, companies like Hobby Lobby and others face startlingly expensive penalties for refusing to comply. This, consequently, is going to force many businesses to close.

I believe America would be best served if the Affordable Care Act were repealed in its entirety and replaced with legislation more affordable and less intrusive. However, if the law must stand, I believe it must be amended to protect the free exercise of religion and conscience of Americans whose beliefs are compromised with this abortion, contraception and sterilization insurance mandate. Thank you, Representative Wagner, for your co-sponsorship of this bill. You have my support.”

Letter to Congress Part I: Free Exercise of Religion

(Last week, for a political science assignment, I had to write a letter to a member of Congress about a certain issue he/she was working on and argue my opinion on the issue. Naturally, I chose the HHS mandate. As I wrote about previously, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act is currently in committee in Congress. Ann Wagner, representing Missouri’s 2nd district, was a co-sponsor of the bill so I wrote to her. This is Part I of the letter, focusing on the free exercise of religion.)

March 6, 2013

Dear Representative Wagner,

I recently read of your co-sponsorship of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940). I wanted to write to express my support and thanks for your involvement in this piece of legislation. Under the Affordable Care Act, we know that a mandate exists that will require employers and organizations to provide insurance plans—plans that must include coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations. Many Americans harbor deep objections to these practices but under the Affordable Care Act, will be required to provide insurance coverage for said practices to employees. Specifically speaking, houses of worship are exempt, but other religious organizations such as hospitals, schools, charities and other organizations are not—and we know that these religious organizations will not compromise convictions even in the face of extreme penalties or fines. I support the HCCRA bill and your co-sponsorship because I believe that, as the mandate stands, it inhibits the free exercise of religion for individuals who morally object to abortion, contraception and other similar practices; it forces employers to violate their conscience, a right that has been acknowledged numerous times by the federal government on this particular issue; and the economic impacts of the full implementation of this mandate have devastating potential.

Within the First Amendment stands the free exercise clause, stating that “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The HHS mandate requiring employers to provide abortifiacient, contraception, and sterilization coverage (or else face a steep fine) in their health care plans is blatantly an infringement upon this because it forces employers—whether they are organizationally or personally religious, or both—to do something which is antithetical to what their faith commands. Daniel Smyth of the American Thinker interestingly looked to the historic context of the text of the clause. Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language published in 1755 and a popular dictionary during the 18th century revealed much of the context of the specific words used in the free exercise clause. Prohibit is “to debar, to hinder—to obstruct, stop, or impede” and exercise is not defined merely as the profession of worship but “to practice, to perform [outwardly].” Thus, the practice of a tenet of faith—the sanctity of life and its protection—is clearly hindered and obstructed when one is forced to violate that tenet.

In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security (1981), the Court decided:

“Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial.”

Similarly, this mandate puts pressure on employers to support abortion, contraception, and sterilization through offering it in their insurance plans, and hence a burden upon the free exercise of religion exists—a burden upon freely exercising the moral and religious belief that life is to be protected and not prevented. The mandate requires that one violate beliefs and “modify behavior” to pay for something that they hold to be deeply wrong and immoral.

(Part II: Rights of Conscience will be forthcoming! Keep checking back!) 

Missouri Company-12, HHS Mandate-4

A company from our own great state of Missouri recently won a court order (Sioux Chief Manufacturing v. Sebelius) against the HHS mandate requiring employers to provide coverage for abortion, contraception and sterilizations on their employee health insurance plans.

Sioux Chief Manufacturing is near Kansas City and was represented in court by lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom, a fantastic organization of lawyers dedicated to defending religious liberty. Lead counsel of this case, Jonathan R. Whitehead stated:

“Americans should be free to honor God and live according to their consciences wherever they are…They have the God-given freedom to live and transact business according to their faith, and the First Amendment has always protected that. Forcing Americans to ignore their faith just to earn a living is unprecedented, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.”

This makes 12 court rulings against the mandate granting exemptions from the mandate, compared to the four rulings in its favor. In researching for this blog post, I found a fascinating map that shows every HHS mandate case that has been filed, along with details regarding plaintiffs and court decisions. Check it out here. Congratulations to Sioux Chief Manufacturing for winning the court order and for pushing back against this intrusive mandate–may other business and organizations continue to do the same.

For one of my classes, I had to write a letter to a member of congress regarding an issue, arguing my opinion on said issue. I, of course, chose the HHS mandate. I’ll be posting this letter in several sections over the next few days, so please check back periodically!

Introduced Today: Health Care Conscience Rights Act

As you may be well aware, the current administration’s HHS mandate will require businesses, including religious groups, to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives within their employee health insurance plans–a blatant and quite sad infringement upon religious liberty. Today, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act will be introduced to the House by Representatives Diane Black (R-TN), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), and John Fleming (R-LA). The representatives stated:

“HCCRA offers reprieve from ongoing violations of our First Amendment, including full exemption from the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate and conscience protection for individuals and health care entities that refuse to provide, pay for, or refer patients to abortion providers because of their deeply-held, reasoned beliefs.”

In addition to defending the conscience of individuals, business and religious groups who morally object to the HHS mandate, the HCCRA will:

• offer protection for those in the medical industry (doctors, nurses, Catholic hospitals) who object to participating in abortions; it will “enable nurses, doctors, hospitals, all health care professionals… to abide by their conscience”
• protection for hospitals and other medical related groups against discrimination in the event they refuse to participate in abortions, and “judicial recourse” for those who do experience discrimination

Kudos to these Congressmen and women for introducing this bill. As it stands, the HHS mandate will force crippling penalties upon those who refuse to comply (see: Hobby Lobby). Such penalties will inevitably kill jobs, and force business to close their doors. Business, individuals and religious organizations should not be forced to violate their conscience, and this bill has the potential to defend against that violation. Pray it has success in the House ,and that it goes forth to ensure stable protection of religious liberty against the HHS mandate.

A press conference hosted by Family Research Council is scheduled for tomorrow regarding the HCCRA. Updates on the status of this bill will be posted as they become available.

Arkansas Abortion Ban

Arkansas has become one of several other states whose legislatures have taken a step in the pro-life direction. This past week, a bill passed the Republican-controlled Arkansas Senate that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. Democratic Governor Mike Beebe vetoed it, yet both the House and Senate voted to override that veto and hence the bill became law. The 20 week ban is based on the fact that unborn babies can begin to feel pain by that time, and the thought is that it’s at that point they should be protected from abortion. Note that this bill would include exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

Whether this law–and another ban that passed the AR Senate awaiting action by the Governor, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks–can stand constitutional challenges remains to be seen. (The 12 week ban is based on the fact that it is around 12 weeks a heartbeat can be detected.) Governor Beebe, of course, believes such bans to be against Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and the ACLU is already promising to contest these bans.

ACLU of Arkansas director Rita Sklar said the 12 and 20 week abortion bans are unconstitutional: “The Supreme Court has upheld voluntary abortions up to the point of viability – 20 weeks is pre-viability.”

It’s admirable that the AR state legislature has taken this bold step forward, but I fear the power of the courts and the Roe v. Wade decision may trump the reason of protecting life. The state of Arkansas may have to spend incredible amounts of tax dollars defending this legislation against lawsuits from the ACLU and others, and if it loses in court, case law stacked up against it will only hurt the cause further. But as it stands, this law will save lives and is a positive step towards making our states and state legislatures more conscious of defending life.

Through these kinds of bills, though, the question I see reappearing is when does life begin to “deserve” protection against abortion? Roe v. Wade says voluntary abortion should be protected up until “viability,” insinuating that life should be protected only after a child could viably survive outside the womb. Lawmakers here are saying babies should be protected at 12 weeks or 20 weeks–and perhaps this kind of incremental legislative compromise is the best they can do, and that’s certainly better than nothing. But I think to make any real difference we need to define, clearly, that life begins not at any politician-decided, or court-agreed-upon point in a baby’s development, but at conception. When we define an unborn child as a person at the very earliest stages of development, then we will have greater recourse in ending a most grievous practice at all stages, not just after 12 or 20 weeks.