Obama move against Catholics on abortion is just wrong

Thursday, February 9, 2012

As a preamble, we do not agree with the Catholic Church's position that government should forbid all abortions.
But we do respect that position. We accept the right of Catholics to refuse to allow their money to be used to promote something they regard as murder, just as we accept the right of Amish to be excepted from paying Social Security tax or, in time of war, to be drafted, the right of Sikh men to wear turbans and beards, the right of Muslims to pray five times per day, etc.
Now, though, the Obama administration has just made it morally difficult for Catholics to vote for Obama's re-election.
The administration is poised to require religiously affiliated entities to pay for insurance that provides free sterilization and contraception, including some drugs that cause abortions, to their employees.
The socialists-in-disguise now running Washington claim that Catholic universities and hospitals must act "just like other employers," and provide these benefits.
That's just wrong, and unAmerican.
Catholic employers aren't "just like other employers." Amish firms employing Amish workers do not collect Social Security because they, too, aren't "just like other employers."
The American system is based on tolerance of diversity in religious beliefs.
Obama and his minions are attempting to shove their own irreligious vision of how society should function down other people's throats, using the full force of the government to require compliance.
We wouldn't blame Catholics if they shuttered their schools to non-Catholic students and employees - and closed their universities and hospitals altogether, throwing the burden of treating an additional 20 percent of Americans onto the public health care system.
Again - this isn't about abortion.
It is about dictatorial usurpation of power by a small clique of fanatical socialists who aren't "pro-choice," or "pro-" anything, but are "Do it this way or go to jail" extremists.
We think that Newt Gingrich as a President would be dangerous. We think that Ron Paul as a President would be a "Twilight Zone" experience. We think that Rick Santorum as President would risk some heavy-handedness in terms of imposed morality. We think that Mitt Romney has a lot of convincing to do before we regard him as much more than a nice rich guy who, well, wants the job.
But this usurpation of dictatorial powers by the Obama administration makes it clear that any of those candidates - and putative Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden - despite their shortcomings, would be preferable to four more years of this oligarch.
We endorsed Obama four years ago, as the lesser of two evils. At the time, he was. Obama promised change: Close Guantanamo, end earmarks, roll back the Patriot Act. He lied. He broke his campaign promises. This year, he'll tell us again what he "hopes" to do if re-elected ... and then he'll do things like end religious tolerance in this country.
Even if Obama abandons this latest attempt to coerce religious conformity this year, what is to stop him and his minions from renewing it next year, if we give him four more years in office? That's why we can't see any Catholic trusting him to not force Catholic institutions into a mold they regard as grievously sinful.
Where is the huge, overriding public need for such an action? There is none. The "Occupy" protesters don't demand it; the labor unions don't demand it. Only Obama and a small clique of socialists seek to impose it.
Congress should roll this back now.
And in November, the voters - Democrats, Republicans and Independents - should roll Obama back to Chicago, where "community organizer" seems to be a job that matches his abilities. Yes, the Republican alternatives are imperfect. But Obama is worse.
- Denny Bonavita