- The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on February 16 convened the first Congressional hearing on the HHS mandate. In this article Chairman Darrell Issa argues that the real issue is Religious Liberty, not contraception.
The core issue we explored at the hearing was the federal government’s efforts to compel religious institutions to use their own money to pay for services that directly violate their religious teachings.
- This concise piece by the Heritage Foundation gives an overview of the struggle over defining the controversy (even though it refers to a Senate amendment voted down March 1). It summarizes both views and argues that the real issue is Religious Liberty.
- The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is suing HHS on behalf of EWTN, a Catholic TV network. In this article published in the New York Times Michael Warsaw explains that the basis for their suit is defending Freedom of Conscience against State domination.
- A female Muslim attorney testified before the House Oversight Committee February 28 on behalf of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Asma T. Uddin examines the argument over whether this controversy is about Religious Freedom or women’s rights: “As a female member of religious minority, I hold this right to religious freedom particularly dear, as, for example, a Muslim woman’s
right to dress as she pleases is restricted by many governments across the world.” This article
has links to video of her testimony and to the transcript.
- Dr. Martin Noland writes in theSteadfast Lutherans blog about the “social gospel” theology behind the HHS mandate, explaining how the mandate constitutes a genuine “establishment of religion” in direct contravention of the First Amendment. Dr. Noland expands the discussion a bit in this audio file from Issues.Etc. Here is the conclusion from his written article:
This is a real theological conflict. The conflict between the creedal gospel and the social gospel is, truth be told, the major theological conflict in the Christian church today. The government should not take sides in this conflict, because that is definitely what the First Amendment calls an “establishment of religion.” Contraceptives and abortifacients can be offered to all people of the U.S. in other ways, if the government feels that it is important for public health. But when the government mandates this from religious institutions and coerces religious institutions, it is taking sides in a religious conflict. It is theological, after all!
- This two minute video from Americans United for Life (www.aul.org) concisely makes the case that the controversy is about Freedom of Conscience.
- Is there a "war on women"? Perhaps the attack is from HHS! This Heritage Foundation article lists "Five Things the Administration Forgot to Tell Women About Obamacare."
- ... and speaking of the "War on Women," listen to this interview with Lila Rose of Live Action about the recent increase in "gendercide" -- abortion for sex selection, which typically means the abortion of unborn babies because they are girls. Yes, not just in China or India, but even in the United States! President Obama REFUSED to support House Bill 3541 to outlaw this in the USA. The bill was blocked by Democrats on May 31.
- Here is the text of Laura Wegmann's remarks at the June 30 Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally in Fort Wayne: "War Against Women? No Way!".
[More to come]